Y2Knewswire 39 Q. ANSWERED by The Y2k Weathermangreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Dear Y2kWatcher,The list of questions below was provided by Mike Adams and Y2K Newswire for this week's Y2K Internet Rally. Last month Y2K Newswire was promoting a code of silence out of fear of causing panic. This week Y2K Newswire has become the Ralph Nader of Y2k.
I'm not sure what precipitated the 180 degree about face from the "code of silence" to "Y2K Internet Rally," but my hat is off to Mike Adams. This has to be the best publicity stunt I've seen. While most Y2k product vendors are dumping products at cut rate prices and running for cover, Mike Adams and Y2K Newswire are boldly going were only Gary North would dare tread.
Anyway, after reading the so called 39 UN-answered questions about Y2k, I didn't find them to be that hard. Many of the questions are based on false premises. I'm betting the reason nobody in the mainstream press answered them was not out of fear, but out of boredom. I can't believe I actually got through them all (yawn!). (I'll be even more amazed if you read all my answers.)
The Y2k debate has become nothing if not bizarre. Perhaps the answers below will help put things back into perspective as we enter the final days of the date roll over countdown.
-The Y2k Weatherman
--------------------------------------
Thirty-nine ANSWERED questions about Y2K:
1. Why is there not a single Fortune 1000 firm that has said, in its 10-Q SEC statement, that it is fully, unequivocally Y2K-compliant?
Answer: Same reason there is not a single Fortune 1000 firm that has said that it is fully, unequivocally OSHA-compliant or IRS-compliant. America is a litigious society, and stating anything is unequivocally true opens the door to sue happy plaintiff attorneys. The term "Y2k Ready" has been adopted as the legally safe term that means "we've performed due diligence and don't think we can be sued for whatever happens."
---
2. How can an entire industry be deemed "Y2K ready" if no members of that industry are claiming full Y2K compliance?
Answer: Nobody is legally liable for the Y2k compliance of an entire industry, so since there are no deep pockets to sue, there is no risk in making any Y2k claims about entire industries or economies.
---
3. Why is it politically correct for pharmaceutical companies to stockpile life-saving medications but not for a family to do the same thing?
Answer: Because being "politically correct" has nothing to do with objective truth. "Political correctness" is about moral relativism, power politics, and special interests.
---
4. How can the U.S. economy not be impacted by major infrastructure failures in countries with which America trades goods and services?
Answer: Major infrastructure failures are not guaranteed. Only time will tell. The USA has the most at risk from Y2k since we have the largest technology infrastructure and are more reliant on technology than just about any other country. Fortunately, the USA is also the best prepared for Y2k. The verdict will come out in the next 6-12 months.
---
5. Why did the April 9, 1999 and September 9, 1999 power industry drills held by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) not test power generation or power distribution equipment? And why did NERC say, in a document found on its web site, "Do not make the drill too complex. We want to have a successful and meaningful story for publication." Source: Y2K Newswire: http://www.y2knewswire.com/archives/power/NERCdrill.pdf
Answer: These drills were not intended to be a comprehensive test of the entire North American power grid, and if they had attempted such an impossible feat the results would have been meaningless anyway. Individual electric utilities may be at risk, but one of the biggest myths of Y2k is that there is one giant grid that will go down.
---
6. Were you aware that our nation's political leaders made a conscious decision to downplay preparedness advice out of the fear it might threaten banks and the stock market? Isn't this a strategy that essentially says the stock market is more important than the safety of Americans? Source: WIRED News, February 18, 1999: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/17986.html
Answer: Yes, I was aware of this. What's your point? Clinton still maintains he didn't have an illicit relationship with a certain White House intern. Honesty has been replaced by profit and pleasure as a core value in American business and politics.
---
7. Why was the FAA unable to produce documentation backing up their claims of an independent audit declaring 100% Y2K compliance? More importantly, why did no publication in this country even attempt to track down these independent audit documents before repeating the FAA's claims as fact? Source: Y2K Newswire: http://www.y2knewswire.com/reports/Airfoiled-Public.htm
Answer: The first part of the question is answered in the very good investigative journalist piece at the above link. The "more important" question is answered by understanding that the mainstream media has marginal value for people who value the truth.
---
8. Has anyone from your publication actually seen a single signed, independent third-party audit that assigned 100% Y2K compliance to any Fortune 1000 firm or federal agency?
Answer: Has anyone actually seen a single signed, independent third-party audit that assigned 100% OSHA or IRS compliance to any Fortune 1000 firm or federal agency? Get real.
---
9. If your publication only trusts and quotes "official sources" on Y2K topics, and if those same official sources have political, professional or financial reasons to understate the severity of the problem they're facing, isn't it true that the information you're relying on for Y2K reporting may be inaccurate?
Answer: The Y2kWatch-News doesn't trust any "official sources" on Y2k topics.
---
10. Given that Y2K remediation costs have already exceeded the cost of the entire Vietnam War, with some organizations spending over a billion dollars on repairs, isn't Y2K already in the category of a huge, man-made crisis, even if no problems occur on January 1?
Answer: Given that the automotive industry spent even more than that making cars last year, why isn't that a "crisis"? A "crisis" is a critical decision affecting the entire future of the entity. Ordinary business costs like manufacturing expenses and Y2K remediation don't qualify...except maybe in the minds of a few people who don't understand the nature of business.
---
11. Why has no Fortune 1000 firm yet conducted full, end-to- end testing of the Y2K compliance of their computer systems?
Answer: It is cost prohibitive.
11b. Earlier this year, the Pentagon held a test that John Koskinen called the largest test ever conducted on Y2K. Yet this test only involved 2% of the Pentagon's total systems. If this is truly the largest test ever conducted, doesn't this mean most organizations have probably only tested 1% of their systems?
Answer: The Pentagon Y2k effort was clearly a huge effort. 2% of the Pentagon's huge number of systems is probably more than the number of mission critical systems in the vast majority of all but the largest of private companies.
---
12. Why, in early 1999, did the federal government drop over 3,200 computer systems from "mission critical" lists? And what happens if these previously-mission-critical systems are not fixed? Has your publication explained to its readers the significance of this subtle redefinition strategy and how it deceives the public by inflating "progress" statistics?
Answer: Probably because the systems really weren't "mission critical" once the term "mission critical" was clearly defined. There is no universally accepted definition for "mission critical." Redefining the criteria for "mission critical" to be more stringent is pretty common when time and money are running short.
---
13. Why did NERC distribute a template "Y2K Ready Letter" with suggestive phrases and claims that companies could send back to NERC as part of their "independent" claims of Y2K readiness? Isn't this like giving out the answers right before the test? Source: Y2K Newswire: http://www.y2knewswire.com/archives/power/NercTemplate.pdf
Answer: There are so many opinions about what Y2K readiness really means that it helps to provide a sample of what this agency expects to see. Any good teacher knows that you teach best by example. (And giving out the answers is always a good idea if you want to have high a average test scores!)
---
14. If the IRS spent $4 billion over eleven years in a failed effort to revamp their computers, how can it possibly solve Y2K in just two years? And why hasn't the American press focused on the urgent issue of having a contingency tax system (like the national retail sales tax) in place, ready to roll, in case the IRS suffers critical problems?
Answer: The paradigm shift of moving from an income to a consumption based tax system is a huge political debate. Fixing the Y2k problem at the IRS by putting in a flat tax system would be more logical since both are income based taxing paradigms. (Note: I prefer the retail sales tax, but doubt it will ever happen.)
---
15. Recently, NASA apparently lost yet another Mars probe due to unknown reasons. The last Mars probe was apparently lost due to a unit conversion error made by NASA personnel. If NASA scientists and programmers typically operate at ten times the accuracy of "regular" programmers, and yet they still manage to make mission-killing mistakes, why should the world believe that industry Y2K programmers won't make any such mistakes?
Answer: If NASA programmers are ten times better, perhaps their systems are 20 (or more) times more complex. Date-related software is not rocket science.
15a. At one point in 1998, Y2K "no big deal" commentators appeared on national television, explaining that the whole problem could be solved by recruiting welfare recipients to learn COBOL. This was reported as a genuine, credible strategy for solving the Y2K problem. Have you followed up on how many mission- critical systems have actually been remediated by welfare programmers? And if so, how likely are these systems to be error-free on January 1?
Answer: This is total ignorance from technical neophytes. It would take more time and money to train welfare programmers than to just fix the problem. Programming is not an easily learned skill.
---
16. Auto manufacturers typically rely on well over ten thousand suppliers for critical parts. If 99% of these ten thousand suppliers are Y2K-compliant, doesn't that still mean one percent (one hundred suppliers), on average, may suffer failures? How will auto manufacturers build cars with only 99% of the parts? Why isn't this simple mathematical exercise being described to Americans?
Answer: They will fix the problem, and then build the cars. Cars may be a little harder to get next year, but most Americans already have cars, so that's not a big problem. Car prices would be correspondingly a little higher, so even the dealers won't be unduly hurt by it.
---
17. The power plant that serves Santa Fe, New Mexico, has now announced there is a "high probability" that electricity will be cut off to the city on January 1. The city apparently hasn't yet funded the installation of a backup generator for the sewer system, either. What will happen to Santa Fe residents if power cannot be restored for a week and the sewers don't work? Is this a scenario for which citizens should continue to not prepare? Source: http://www.abqjournal.com/news/23news12- 02-99.htm
Answer: They'll do the same thing that New Zealand and Canada and other places in the past did when they were without power for extended periods of time. They will make do. This is not just a Y2k problem.
---
18. If Y2K is a non-event, why did our federal government spend $50,000,000 on a Y2K command bunker? Why are cities like Boulder, Colorado deploying armed SWAT teams and "prisoner transport teams" on New Years Eve? Source: Sunday Camera, November 28, 1999, www.bouldernews.com
Answer: The premise is false. The idea of Y2k being a "non-event" is silly rhetoric. It has been an ongoing event for several and will continue to be an ongoing event for months to come.
---
19. Throughout 1998, nearly every company claimed it would be Y2K compliant by December 31, 1998, "with a full year for testing." Can you name a single Fortune 1000 firm that achieved and announced full Y2K compliance on that day? What happened to the full year for testing? Is this an important missed deadline, or were all those companies lying when they said they needed a full year for testing?
Answer: No, they were lying when they said they would be compliant by December 31, 1998. So what? All this 100% compliance stuff is misleading. It is only necessary for the companies to ship product. Billing can take longer, and it just costs the company some to borrow money against receivables if they can't bill immediately.
---
20. If Venezuela, one of our nation's chief suppliers of imported oil, was 100% non-compliant in March, how can it be 100% Y2K-compliant today? How did this small nation apparently accomplish in ten months what has taken the Social Security Administration ten years to achieve? What will happen to our economy if Venezuela cannot export oil for thirty days?
Answer: No wonder nobody wanted to answer these questions! This is another false premise. Nobody is 100% anything. This is utter foolishness to claim that any organization was 100% compliant or non-compliant at any point in time. If Venezuela cannot export oil prices will go up and people will get their oil elsewhere or do without. Welcome to the free market.
---
21. We keep reading stories of little old ladies who were robbed after they withdrew cash from their banks. Can your publication produce a single police report that details such a robbery?
Answer: Good grief, these questions are getting lame. Little old ladies withdraw cash all the time, and they are often the victims of robbery. This is not a Y2k issue, except for those foolish enough to pull out more money than they need for emergency situations.
---
22. The Y2K compliance claims of the United States sound just like the claims from other countries: Italy, China, Russia, South Africa, even Jamaica. Every country says it is fine. Ilya Klebanov, for example, Russia's deputy prime minister, says, "We will pass quietly through 2000 just like we have every other year. ...I think it's best not to scare the little children of Russia." How have you, as a journalist, determined where to draw the line between "countries that are lying" and "countries that are telling the truth?"
Answer: They are all lying. So what? So are the doomsayers. The extremists in both camps, doomsayers and Pollyannas, will have egg on their face next year. (Actually, the Pollys already have egg on their face, but they've repositioned themselves quite nicely with the "winter snowstorm" mantra.)
---
23. If the world's oil production is not at all threatened by Y2K, why has the International Energy Agency (IEA) drawn up plans for global rationing of oil reserves? Source: Reuters (London), November 30, 1999.
Answer: Yet another false premise. The world's oil production is threatened by all sorts of potential disasters, not just Y2k. The people in the industry are taking what they deem to be prudent precautions.
---
24. What will happen to our technology industry and dot-com stocks if computer parts shipments from Asia are disrupted because of Y2K problems there?
Answer: The same things that will happen if computer parts shipments from Asia are disrupted by political unrest, war, or earthquake: They will adjust their catalogs and get on with life. See what happened to Apple when (USA-based) Motorola couldn't deliver chips. This is not a Y2K problem.
---
25. The White House says that all federal systems will work just fine, but smaller, local systems will experience problems. Yet we know, from experience, that the opposite is true: larger, more complex systems usually take longer to fix and have more post-remediation problems than smaller systems. Why hasn't your publication publicly questioned the contradiction in this official explanation?
Answer: I continuously deprecate the lack of integrity in White House pronouncements. I guess this question doesn't apply to the Y2kWatch-News.
---
26. As organizations in the United States purchased new equipment for Y2K, they sold much of the older, non-Y2K- compliant equipment to after-market importers in less-wealthy nations. This includes medical and telecommunications equipment. By doing this, isn't America actually exporting a Y2K crisis to nations that can least afford one? And won't this result in widespread international blame when people die in those countries as a result of, for example, failed medical devices? Doesn't this make Y2K an important foreign policy issue that should be addressed by the national media?
Answer: The premise is false. People in those countries are dying for *lack* of medical devices. Equipment that works sometimes is better than none at all in most cases. In other cases, too much medical technology wrongly applied is killing people. This has been Clinton's latest PR campaign...trying to make medical care safer from accidents and mistakes.
---
27. The White House says any Y2K problems that occur will be due to "overreaction by the people." Isn't this really an attempt to blame the public for a problem originally caused by the federal government's establishing the two-digit year standard in the first place?
Answer: In a litigious society, everybody likes to blame somebody else -- including this questioner. The premise is false: the government didn't impose any standard on the rest of us, they went along with commonly accepted practice, which was widespread before and apart from computers, and still is.
---
28. If prepared people are less afraid, and only non-prepared people are likely to panic during a disruption, why has the federal government generally discouraged adequate Y2K preparedness? Isn't this ultimately contributing to the potential for panic? Why does the White House tell Americans to have half a tank of gas and not a full tank?
Answer: Again, the premise if false. Prepared people are *more* afraid. That's why they get prepared. Some of those who are prepared gain peace of mind after reaching a level of comfort with their preparedness, but those who weren't concerned enough to prepare aren't likely to panic until they are directly affected and get past their denial that there is a problem.
---
29. The Federal Reserve promises to pump nearly $200 billion in currency into the banking system in an effort to make sure banks don't run out of cash. There is more than enough to go around, we're told, so it's fine if people want to take out a few weeks' cash. If this is true, why are banks targeting the elderly, using fear tactics (stories of muggings) to prevent them from taking out their cash? If an elderly person remembers the crash of 1929 and the subsequent bank failures, isn't she acting rationally by protecting her life savings? And isn't it true that her actions don't threaten the system anyway because the Fed has delivered all this extra cash? Shouldn't banks try to make customers feel comfortable instead of fearful?
Answer: Again, the premise is false. There was no FDIC in 1929. Her life savings are not protected by exposing them to (uninsured) robbery. The FED creates money out of thin air all the time, and our money is not backed by gold or silver. Replacing money is just a matter of printing it or fixing the computers. Electronic money can be replaced just as easily as it can disappear.
---
30. Why is it socially acceptable to buy fire insurance, car insurance and life insurance but not "food insurance" by having some extra food stored away? Through what mechanism did the Boy Scout motto, "Be prepared" become politically incorrect? Will Boy Scouts now be called extremists? Or will they be forced to change their motto to, "Be prepared, except for Y2K."
Answer: A few weeks or so of "food insurance" is a fine idea. Six months' is overkill because no disaster (including Y2K) will take out food availability for that long while leaving you still safe and cozy in your home. Unlike natural disasters, Y2k will not destroy property or food. Personally, I'm already using my stored food and have developed a rotating pantry.
---
31. Why are Californians urged to have a two-week stockpile of supplies for earthquake preparedness, but only a three-day stockpile for Y2K? Should Californians throw out eleven days of supplies to be politically correct for Y2K?
Answer: Earthquakes destroy property and food and transportation channels; Y2k will not destroy any of those.
---
32. If stock prices are based on rational, justifiable earnings per share, why is the NASDAQ exchange planning on running year-end advertisements that urge shareholders not to sell their stocks? If a company did this, wouldn't it be in violation of SEC regulations?
Answer: The premise is false. Stock prices are NOT based on anything rational. The stock market is in a mania stage right now. Educated investors know this, but nobody seems to care as long as the mania continues. When greed turns to fear, watch out!
---
33. Why is virtually no member of the press asking Presidential candidates for their views on the Year 2000 problem?
Answer: The candidates' opinions are irrelevant to their ability to lead the country after it's all over.
---
34. If the banking industry is rock-solid, why does it seem to be terrified of radio and TV advertisements that poke fun at Y2K? Are we to believe that a humorous television advertisement can threaten our entire financial system? And if so, how strong a system is that to begin with?
Answer: The premise is false. Nothing is solid in the face of widespread public opinion, bogus or otherwise. (All the false premises of these questions is getting very tiresome. No wonder nobody bothered to respond!)
---
35. If your publication is funded by advertisements from companies that would be financially harmed if you reported they were non-compliant, don't you have a clear-cut conflict of interest that prevents you from investigating their compliance? Have you explained this conflict of interest to your readers when you publish stories about Y2K?
Answer: All publications funded by ads have a conflict of interest. This is not a Y2k problem. Nobody is honest about it -- not even Consumer Reports, which takes no ads but does accept money from those it reports on.
---
36. Most publications in the United States rely on news wires from AP and Reuters. When you publish Y2K-related stories borrowed from these wire services, what percentage of the statements from AP and Reuters do you actually verify? For what percentage of the stories do you conduct your own investigations and add additional facts?
Answer: This is not a Y2K issue. Small publications cannot afford to check everything; that's why they rely on the wire services. In a country where the official policy of the nation (confirmed by the Senate) is lying to save one's skin, it is hard to establish objective truth. That is why I created the website at http://DiscoverTruth.com.
---
37. Many Year 2000 contingency plans rely on manual operations in case computer systems fail. Isn't there a gaping contradiction in the idea that everybody has been made more efficient by technology, but then we don't really need these computers because we can do it all by hand anyway? Furthermore, how will U.S. railroads go back to manual operations if the actual hand-thrown track switches have been removed? How will the IRS hand-write checks to million of taxpayers, as they have suggested they might do, if the refund database remains lost inside the crashed computers?
Answer: This question is based on the false premise that *all* the automation will *permanently* fail. Manual backup is a reasonable contingency plan for a very low-probability event, as each individual system failure is likely to be. The IRS doesn't need to manually write all their checks, they only need to manually hack the dates in their computers back to 1999 long enough to coax the checks out (with a wrong date printed on them) and manually rubber-stamp a correct year on them. Or, instruct the banks to manually cash the evidently stale-dated checks anyway. And all this only if all the IRS computers break dead.
---
38. CCD Online Systems, a Y2K solutions provider, has offered to donate $50,000 to schools in the name of any of fourteen organizations on their "challenge list" that can pass an independent Y2K compliance test. If everyone is already Y2K compliant, as the public has been told, why has no organization on this list answered the challenge? Aren't they acting socially irresponsible by denying tens of thousands of dollars to our nation's children? Source: http://www.ccdonline.com/en/News/t_press16_e.html
Answer: If they wanted to benefit schools, they would just give them the $50,000 instead of tying it to impossible Y2K demands. (Note: This publicity stunt is almost as good as Y2K Newswires 39 unanswered questions, though.) :-)
---
39. Finally, the American public has been told to expect -- and base their preparations on -- the best-case outcome; the "no big deal" outcome or "three day snowstorm" scenario. When, in your entire life, have you ever seen the federal government take on a highly-complex, multi-billion-dollar project and get it right on time, the first time?
Answer: Government is inefficient, but uneducated, uninformed, and unprepared Americans will trade their freedom for security to government. Until this nation realizes that unchecked government becomes tyranny, it will get worse instead of better.
-The Y2k Weatherman
-- dw (y2k@outhere.com), December 10, 1999
Shrug. Seems to be a lot of answers to questions that you don't rate very highly. Why not spend your time coming up with a shorter and more focussed list relevant to the 21 days we've got left?You put a lot of faith in the free market and in "making do". I agree that prepared suppliers will expand to fill the demand, and that unprepared ones will get fixed, but this won't happen overnight. You're guessing that the supply problems will last for a very short period of time. But it's just a guess. I hope you're right.
-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), December 10, 1999.
I read about 25 of the "answers". Enough to see that Y2K Weatherman didn't really answer them.I don't understand why he bothered to put such "answers" for all to see. He makes it sound like the questions are bogus - yet, the questions mostly come from the PR crap that has been released.
For example, he makes the challenge of Venezuela's 100% compliance seem as if it is the Question that is unrealistic. He never addresses the FACT, that in March Venezuela was about 10% compliant, and VENEZUELA now says it's 100% compliant.
So many of the pollies think this type of "answer" is sufficiant.
Chemtrail poisoning?
-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.
It's obvious the Y2K "Weatherman" sees little of reality except as molded by the mainstream. It's a shame. He considers himself a "GI" and yet he obviously lives in a Y2K weather "biosphere" with pretty rainbows in a blue sky environment, lovely flowers, and a whole lotta wishful thinking, & a true misunderstanding of the scope of the potential problems involved.He doesn't even understand half the Q's, calling them based on false premises. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT of the questions: that mainstream reporting is being done based on these false, unsubstantiated false premises. Duh!
The 'Y2K Weatherman' is operating on MANY false premises. Many. As if we can be sure that any of our services will be uninterrupted or even maintained, which is inherent in all his responses. The California quake prep answer he gives is one show of the most blatantly naivete, no, ignorannce, on the "Weatherman's" behalf:
31. Why are Californians urged to have a two-week stockpile of supplies for earthquake preparedness, but only a three-day stockpile for Y2K? Should Californians throw out eleven days of supplies to be politically correct for Y2K?
Answer: Earthquakes destroy property and food and transportation channels; Y2k will not destroy any of those.
Patent misinformation by the Y2Kw.man. How can he know? He is blinded by desire.
Ah what fools these...
-- faith'nhope (y2kaos@home.com), December 10, 1999.
Greg:Good for you. I gave up with this gem included in the answer to #10:
". Ordinary business costs like manufacturing expenses and Y2K remediation don't qualify."
Characterizing Y2k remediation as a normal expense is a clue as to the value of the answer(s). The questions merit a more honest appraisal than this.
Another red herring was the attempt to obfuscate end to end testing with IRS and / or OSHA compliance. However, like I wrote, I gave up at number ten.
-- Tom Beckner (tbeckner@xout.erols.com), December 10, 1999.
I can tell you that y2k weatherman is *not* a Polly, in fact was one of the 1st y2k alertness sites available.He's also the one that has had the basic advice of "prepare yourself spiritually 1st" which I must agree with. He has lowered his asessment of how bad things will be, however, but as I've said in previous threads,his input is most welcome in making rational decisions.Thanks for everything, Dennis!on de rock
-- Walter (on de rock@northrock.bm), December 10, 1999.
I have to disagree with all this John Wayne "make do" nonsense. A shocking number of businesses collapsed in the UPS strike, which more than demonstrated "make do" is a pretty little fairy tale in the minds of those unable to grasp that bad things do and can happen to oneself.Another point I'd like to make is that without water humans die within 3-5 days, and thus one sure is sitting comfy and cozy with ones stash.
I think the "weatherman" is also a yet one more person pretending overpopulation is not real and here. Planet earth can cope with 2 billion and is now over 6 billion. There is not a "make do" in this. The "make do" is the fully compliant and functional global economy.
He wasn't very bright. Bright people seem to be lacking these days. It's a bummer.
-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), December 10, 1999.
This was actually pretty interesting. It also demonstrated the classic Y2Knewswire technique... framing the question in such a way as to limit the response to only desired answer. The "weatherman" does a fairly good job of spotting these logic traps and defusing them. Oh, and on a side note, Y2Knewswire failed to report the scale of the DoD system mentioned in Question 11. As it turns out, the system handled more dollars and transactions than all of the ecommerce on the Internet last year. Y2Knewswire used the 2% figure to create a false impression. So it goes.
-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), December 10, 1999.
COuldn't agree with you more, Ken. These "39" questions are a testament to the overblown severity of Y2K. The Y2K Weatherman sounds like a reaonable, rational human being. That is what is TRULY lacking today in addition to his points about government tyranny and peoples uneducatedness. The sad reality is that we can expect to see more ridiculous "drummed up" scenarious as the day of "reckoning" nears. Mike Adams and all the other doomers are close to the sunsetting of their Y2K careers and their ultimate humiliation and retirement. What is sad is that when you and I make posts like this, we are labeled trolls and polly's or whatever....I don't know all of the acronyms. What ever happened to free speech and debate. When I listen to these rumors and stories from unconfirmed sources all over the net, I laugh....very sad. Life and industry will continue...it has no choice.
-- Pete (PR@nonsense.net), December 10, 1999.
Pete, Said:"When I listen to these rumors and stories from unconfirmed sources all over the net, I laugh....very sad. Life and industry will continue...it has no choice."Peter, Let us know if you refuse to assign any credibility to this Gentlemen!! and or his essay! From Dale Way (IEEE Y2K Chair)Oct.28th Essay:
-Snip-
"If an organization goes off half-cocked without complete, detailed knowledge of how its 'system of systems' works altogether in all normal and possible abmormal situations, as the vast majority of remediators have done, yet make wholesale changes as if it did have that knowledge, they are DOOMED to FAILURE unless it had many more years than the three or four most organizations have been at it.
( did you read that Petey!!! read it again-- DOOOOOOOMED to failure!)
(Some agencies of the U.S. government were not being fallacious when they first said they would be ready as late as 2014. They were just being honest. Of Course, that "politically unacceptable" response was QUICKLY SQUELCHED.)
(Petey-what do you think of that-- Squelched--Quickly Squelched-- Gee wonder why??, think DOD and IRS!)
It would be bettter for the whole world if this could be admitted. Then non-technical contingency planning would have the urgency at all levels of society it deserves.
(Hey pete-wonder what he means by this--why don't you tell us all)
but technical management and the Y2Klatura collectively do not have the brains or the guts to do that DEFINITIVELY. We will hew to our baseless confidence or pussyfoot around the obvious until the end. Collectively we are going to drive the ship right into the iceberg and not say anything until the screaming starts and then claim we did all we could to make everything complaint. WE WILL BURN IN HELL>."
(Peter-- Screaming starts!!--Ships into icebergs!!! Burning in Hell!! Doesnt sound like he's laughing --like you are choosing to do)
-Snip
When my hot water heater breaks, I call a plumber to fix it. because he has credibility.
If the Y2K chair for the IEEE makes these type statements--what do I do, just laugh and go on my MERRY Christmas Way!!!!?
Courage!
-- d----- (dciinc@aol.com), December 10, 1999.
OK Ken,Why don't YOU answer the questions? Even 5 or 10 of them? Let's see what incredible insights to our world you can give us.
Pete, I guess you've discounted about every source of news imaginable. That must mean you don't believe the Government, Chevron, GAO, add infinitum . . . If there is a source of "news" that you believe, please tell us what that is. I'll bet we can find information from your named source, that is not rosy.
-- Gregg (g.abbott@starting-point.com), December 10, 1999.
Gary North has put in his two cents worth, with commentary on Y2K Weatherman's answers:
GN's commentary on Y2K Weatherman's answers
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 10, 1999.