Visit http://www.jediknight.com/~smpoole/narro1.html to see a rather nasty article concerning Jim Lord.

I'm surprised Mr Poole did notmention the Navy changing it's tune SO quickly after the release of the information - funny that .........

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), September 08, 1999

Answers

Bunch of crap. The truth is there. Spin will not change the heart of the story

-- thomas saul (thomas.saul@yale.edu), September 08, 1999.

jediknight.com?

LOL. :-)

What rock will that lying smearmonger Poole find next to crawl under?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

As someone else pointed out earlier, it's going to get a lot warmer for 'doomers' as the year wears on. Stephen Poole's criticism of Lord are as nothing compared to the kinds of stuff you can expect from the mass media as the Y2K denouement kicks in. I'm sure Ed is well aware of the potential for mass media to smear his reputation all over the front pages. Expect to see a 'doombrood' roll of honour on the centerspreads, including Ed, Yardeni, maybe Paul Milne (to illustrate doomerism that crazy old Net phenomenom) and DeJager (with a bit of explanation between his early and late writings, to keep his lawyers at bay).

I'm sure Stephen Poole is lining himself up as a key researcher for the stories. You might even make a minor appearance yourself, Lane!

Seriously, even though I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of stuff happens as a kind of last laugh epitaph to the whole cradooble, I suspect that most people will be thoroughly bored with Y2K by January next year, if indeed it does turn out to be anything less than a 7 in your/our backyard.

-- nowhere (nowhere@special.com), September 08, 1999.

I like to think that, by now, nothing is going to surprise me. But I know I'm probably wrong about that....

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

BTW, WND has a Jim Lord story today.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

You guys can whine all you want about the piece on Poole's page, the simple fact is you have yet to credibly discount what was said on it. Rather you took to attacking Poole himself....who didn't even write the piece! Take off the doom-colored glasses and think for a second about what Lord's motives really are. Or, better yet, read for yourselves some of Lord's keen keen insights concerning Y2K - http://www.wbn.com/y2ktimebomb/Tip/Lord/lord9801.htm

This is my favorite paragraph:

"Tonight (New Year's Eve,1997 as I write this), will be the final 'peaceful' calendar roll-over before the Year 2000 Crisis kicks into high gear."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one Tonga boy! Time to sell some more protest packs!

-- Reality Check (you@remisguided.com), September 08, 1999.

Dear Stephen Poole,

"Nothing requires a greater effort of thought than arguments to justify the rule of non-thought."

Have a great day.

-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 08, 1999.

I saw Jim Lord on CSPAN. He's highly credible!!! After what Poole did here, I would not trust a word he says.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), September 08, 1999.

Excellent summary...

Still think Lord is credible?

-- CD (not@here.com), September 08, 1999.

CD, you're kidding, right?

This bit:

"Jim Lord's blockbuster was a fraud from the get-go. The proof is contained in this short but telling paragraph:

As a precaution, I have registered my Internet domain name-- JimLord.to--in Tonga, an island nation in the South Pacific. I have also hidden away several copies of the Navy Department documentation and my Internet files in safe keeping in several states. Friends are standing by to keep this information in the public eye. Just in case."

So, the author of this "essay" against Lord dismisses the CONTENTS of the Navy report (which was acknowledged to be correct by Koskinen) based upon WHERE Lord's website was located..???

Puuuuuuuhleeeeeease!

That entire "essay" on Poole's site is COMPLETE bullsh*t. I'll believe Jim Lord (and even John Koskin'em!) LONG before I'll believe "Steven M. Poole, CET"

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 08, 1999.

The credibility of anyone that uses a "CET" after their name, as if being an electronics technician was some sort of brain surgeon, is in my opinion, laughable.

-- a (a@a.a), September 08, 1999.

Jim Lord has no "character" to assinate.

Ironic that those who call Poole a smearmonger are smearing him themselves. You doom idiots are laughable (that WOULD be a smear, except it is true!)

You clueless morons need to understand that it is not smearing when you tell the TRUTH about someone. Jim Lord was exposed as a fear-mongering extremist. That is a FACT. Irrefutable. Sadly he is also stupid (let me explain).

Instead of catching a clue when the NYTimes smashed his house of fear cards, the poor dense fool claims "he must have hit a nerve".

Dense. That is the only word to explain it that I can think of.

Dense.

Remember in just a few months, you ALL will need to put the pressure on the Lords, Hyatts, Cowles, Yourdons and Norths of the world and start asking the hard questions; "why where your predictions so wrong?" "If you had such good insider info, why didn't things happen like you said they would in your $79.95 information package special?"

Or the REALLY tuff Question...

"I want my money back. How come you don't send it?"

-- U must have (character@2.begin.with), September 08, 1999.

No irony here. Poole is a lying smearmonger. He continually misrepresents what other people maintain. He has done it to me, so I know. He has done it to Roleigh Martin. His attempted hatchet job on Drew Parkhill on this forum was half-witted and lame-brained. But it was still a smear job.

If you don't like it when I tell the truth, get some guts and post with your real name instead of hiding like a coward.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

Dennis:

Koskinen admitted ONLY that such a document was available. He did NOT admit to the correctness of the information therein.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 08, 1999.

Lane Core,

Since you think Poole is a lying smearmonger, why don't you point out to everyone where exactly Poole has lied?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 08, 1999.

Just go to his website. His lies are obvious.

-- (its@coming.soon), September 08, 1999.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=0012v9

Poole deliberately and knowingly misrepresented my position. I don't know what you call that, Buddy, but I call that lying.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

Anita, you said:

Koskinen admitted ONLY that such a document was available. He did NOT admit to the correctness of the information therein.

That is not correct. Kosky DID validate the "correctness" of the data, BUT he then said it was "just a worst case assessment..." or some such drivel. This is on-the-record.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), September 08, 1999.

From your own article Lane Core:

http://users.sgi.net/~elcore/apr9nerc.htm

[snip] While the drill is not a sham, it is at least as much a show as it is a drill.

The question-and-answer bullet points in the Y2K Drill Preparations document don't indicate fraud, but they do indicate that the utilities understand the public relations value of the drill, and that the utilities greatly desire the event to be a public-relations success as well as a successful drill. Who wouldn't?

Combined with other factors, the desire for positive PR must give us pause, at the least.

Jim Lord put one of the factors very well in his March 29th Westergaard column:

"NERC is a trade association for Pete's sake. Its board of directors is made up of 38 executives from the electrical utility industry. They have a built in bias to make the industry look good."

[end snip]

Not much of a stretch to read that and then say, "Lane Core was right. It is a PR stunt." Or something to that effect.

What's past is past. I'm still interested to know what you think Poole is lying about in his current article about Jim Lord. I see some speculation there, but no downright lies.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), September 08, 1999.

Why are we wasting time on that moron Poole? I had hoped to never see his name on this forum again. He still holds the asshole of the year award. Enough said.

Focus people, focus. Time is short.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

People,

GET WITH THE PROGRAM. Poole DID NOT WRITE THIS.

If you visit the link you will notice the authors name.

-- (get@with.it), September 08, 1999.

The Navy's survey results dated June should be read in conjunction with the GAO's June 28th to July 9th survey of large American cities:

"Naval Report and the GAO 21 Cities Report *Please check this out*"

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001MC4

...and...

"Should the Pentagon Papers have surprised us? July GAO report suggest maybe not..."

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001IO0

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 08, 1999.

Gee, Buddy, how did I know that you wouldn't call it lying?....

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 08, 1999.

I stand corrected. The article is ON Stephen M. Poole, CET site, but is actually written by N. Arro.

-- Rob Somerville (merville@globalnet.co.uk), September 08, 1999.

(get@with.it),

Go to the site? I wouldn't go near anything that is associated with that schmuck. CET was a reqular here for quite a while. We went round and round with him. I usually appreciated his opinion, even if we are on different sides of the scale. Then his true colors came out. Check out the above threads.

I check many places for Y2K news just about every day. I don't considers Poole's site Y2K related. I'm not sure what it is. It's not even a bad joke.

Maybe you're the one that should get with it.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

Mr. Core, as someone who is a casual lurker here, I decided to check out the link you specified. Good lord, man, if that single sentence is the basis for you deciding that Mr. Poole "knowingly and deliberately" misrepresented your position, you need therapy. You were an afterthought in the little prank that he pulled.

(And actually, just for the record, I thought it was kindof funny.)

Who is that Poole guy? I've checked his site out, and while I find it mildly amusing, it doesn't really ring my bell. I wouldn't be that concerned about him if I were you. He's a minor player.

I see his name here from time to time, and I noticed he toasted you rather thoroughly in the MSNBC forum a few days ago. You just don't like the guy. What strikes me funny is that you quoted a scripture from Matthew (I believe it was) to force Poole into issuing an apology to you, and yet, you haven't ceased to call him names here and elsewhere. Your hatred is obvious. Is THAT Christian?

You're getting upset over nothing. Just my unbiased opinion; I now slip back into the background ...

-- Sempronius (sempronius@netzero.net), September 08, 1999.

Sempronius,

You had to live thru the Poole days. Lane's problem is only one of many.

His downfall started when he posted this thread:

Why The Power Will Fail In 2000

You'll notice that JollyPrez picked up on the fake number. Then Nigel checked in after a little web search. FactFinder then took it over to EUY2K, where Rick ripped it a new one. Some of us fell for it, but we knew it was a hoax in less than a day.

Then we learn that it's all part of Mr Poole's game. He's a lying SOB that's not worth typ

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 08, 1999.

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

At Jim Lord's Story Was A FRAUD! Mr. Poole, a notorious self-admitted liar, now hosts a web page devoted to the character assassination of a member of the community of Y2K-Warners. The fact that Mr. Poole's page ends with a disclaimer of the opinions expressed there does not shield him from the bad karma of such an act. His responsibility is also not reduced by having the smear appear under an anonymous pen name.

At the center of attention should be not Mr. Lord, but rather The Navy's June Master Utility List, which Mr. Lord merely made public. The widespread trashing of Mr. Lord is a distraction from the serious implications of the Navy's document. The Navy now claims that their June assessment had been public information all along, and thus couldn't be the bombshell of information that it clearly appears to be. The fact is, though, that if Mr. Lord had not disclosed its contents, military families and non-civilians would, for the most part, be still in the dark about the existence of this shocking June report. The Administration and The Navy have since been dramatically successful in sweeping The Navy's June Master Utility List under the rug by confusing its interpretation and by generating new dramatically "improved" reports. Their efforts, however, cannot now change the fact that, in June, the Navy was preparing for likely and probable, partial and total utility failures, which the public was simultaneously being told were no problemo.

Mainstream media and Mr. Poole attempt to discourage people from examining the Navy's June assessment by making it seem to have originated with Mr. Lord, and then discrediting him. Mr. Poole says: not only does [Mr. Poole's 'friend'] actually work on Y2K problems at the code level (unlike Lord), his opinion  is based on some real knowledge of How Things Work.. What Mr. Poole seems to deliberately misunderstand is that Mr. Lord was nothing more than a messenger in this drama. Whether or not Mr. Lord has done code remediation is irrelevant to the implications of the existence of the Navy's document. The Navy's June Master Utility List is not Mr. Lord's "opinion."

The Navy (via John Koskinen, via Steve Davis) quickly admitted that the document, which Mr. Lord publicized, is in fact a genuine Navy assessment. Thereafter, any discussion of Mr. Lord's grade school GPA, SAT scores, psychiatric health, patriotism, religion, or profession is irrelevant to the implications of the existence of The Navy's June Master Utility List. The methodology by which the Navy collected its data is relevant to the meaning of the numbers in their report, and this has been discussed in several of the 135+ Time Bomb 2000 threads devoted to these so-called "Pentagon Papers of Y2K." But, Mr. Lord is not responsible for how the data were collected, or for any supposed mistakes the Navy may have made in how the column headers in their data table were labeled.

Mr. Poole's 'friend' faults Mr. Lord for both not notifying the public immediately and for not making extensive efforts to validate the data. Under these twin requirements, of course, Mr. Lord won't win for losing. Mr. Poole's 'friend' complains that "A truly horrified, concerned patriot would have wanted this broadcast immediately. He would have rushed the discovery to the major media." In the next breath Mr. Poole's 'friend' begins his rant about how Mr. Lord should have gone about getting a peer review. The fact is, though, that Mr. Poole's 'friend' does not know how long Mr. Lord was in possession of the information, nor what measures Mr. Lord took to confirm that the report was a genuine Navy document. It is also not clear just what these complaints supposedly have to do with the ultimate implications of the data in The Navy's June Master Utility List, now that it has been admitted that the document is in fact genuine.

Mainstream media have attempted to portray Mr. Lord as a lone wolf. In this way, I assume, they hope to get the public to discount him, as though that would justify ignoring the Navy's report. In this vein, Mr. Poole's 'friend' states that no one reviewed Mr. Lord's work [sic]. However, Mr. Lord's statement at the unveiling of his own new site that "several people [had already] seen this report," not to mention the several persons who were standing by to keep the information in the public eye. Mr. Poole's 'friend' complains that Mr. Lord  didn't even ask Ed Yourdon, Gary North, Cory Hamasaki, or anyone else who would have been sympathetic to him. Just how Mr. Poole's 'friend' could have known this, he doesn't say. Anyone else? Anyone? Does Mr. Poole's 'friend' pretend to be in such close communication with Mr. Yourdon, Mr. North and Mr. Hamasaki (not to mention everyone else in the whole world) to be able to state unequivocally that Mr. Lord asked nobody for input? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

Gary North tells publicly of how he had already set up his link to Jim Lord's new site before all of the typos were even out, perhaps hours before the site was finally publicly unveiled on the freerepublic site. This statement can be found one hour and 12 minutes into Art Bell's After Dark Show of Thursday August 19th. I vaguely recall that Mr. North has mentioned somewhere that he had also arranged to personally view the original Navy hard copy document prior to having commented upon it at his own site, so as to be personally convinced of its authenticity. I would be obliged if someone would link this discussion to where that was stated by Mr. North. Mr. North was given at least a heads up about the document. Mr. North had a chance to study Mr. Lord's site, perhaps arrange for the physical viewing of the Navy's document (or maybe only attempt to do so), and develop his trademark "take" on it all before the information finally went public at freerepublic.com.

Unfortunately, we do not know the date of Mr. Poole's web page about Mr. Lord. As early as August 23rd, Mr. Lord offers a long list of questions that should be investigated by the news media in search of an interpretation. Mr. Poole's 'friend' provides a similarly long list of questions that need to be investigated. There is, however, one major difference between the two long lists of questions. It is this: Mr. Poole's 'friend' seems to suggest that it would be Mr. Lord's entire responsibility to investigate and thoroughly answer all possible such questions prior to even considering making The Navy's June Master Utility List public.

Amazingly, Mr. Poole's 'friend' even seems to suggest that news reporters such as Mr. Lord should be required to submit their information to a thorough pre-publication review. He goes so far as to recommend a process such as that employed by the New England Journal of Medicine as an appropriate model for such prior restraint. Mr. Poole's 'friend' may or may not be aware that such peer review procedures often take months or even years of repeated rounds of critique and rewriting. On the other hand, considering that we now have less than four full months before the roll over, that feature of the NEJM model could be precisely what he finds so very attractive. After eviscerating the constitutional guarantee against prior restraint, what would Mr. Poole and his 'friend' suggest next? Certification and licensing of reporters, perhaps?

To Mr. Poole's 'friend' (if indeed Mr. Poole does have a friend): Y'all are surely two peas in a pod.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), September 09, 1999.

Thanks for the time and effort Dancr. <:)=

-- Sysman (Y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.

Yes, indeed. Good one, Dancr!

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), September 09, 1999.

Re the How Things Work reference, check out link. This is a PHD who has been posting to comp.software.y2k. Of course I can't prove that this is Steven's anonymous friend.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), September 20, 1999.