I sent the following letter to Baptist Press today. They have promised to print it.

-------------------------------

Dear Editor:

First of all, I want to applaud you on your coverage of Y2K. I appreciate the fair and balanced way in which you have covered this issue in the past. However, I am concerned about an article which you ran a little over a week ago.

On December 6, 1999, Baptist Press ran an article by Daniel Walker Guido entitled, "50 Emergency Declarations Ready for President Clinton to Sign." The article quoted me five times. One statement attributed to me is a misquote; the other is either incorrectly attributed to me and comes from another source or is a complete fabrication. In either case, these statements have created a furor in the Y2K community and have given the impression that I have altered my position on Y2K and how to prepare for it.

In the article, I am quoted as saying:

"I consider myself a Y2K agnostic," Hyatt said. "All the data we have on Y2K is self-reported. Very little is certified. We really don't know if the original problem would have created any crisis. But still, it is best to err on the side of being prepared."

Mr. Guido got the first part of the quote right -- I do consider myself to be a "Y2K agnostic." And indeed, this is based on the fact that almost all of the data related to Y2K are self-reported and uncertified. However, the assertion that "We really don't know if the original problem would have created any crisis" is in error. If there is one thing that almost all Y2K programmers and activists agree on, it is that the Millennium Bug would have resulted in a collapse of the infrastructure and social chaos if left unaddressed. We have already seen some significant Y2K-related failures and we have yet to cross the century date boundry.

As Peter deJager has said many times, "The [computer] code is broken." Fortunately, a good deal of work has been done in the last two years to address the problem. Whether or not *enough* work has been done to solve the problem is anyone's guess. This is why I call myself a "Y2K agnostic." I don't think it's possible to know what the impact of Y2K will be until sometime after the century rollover. Certainly, all of us are praying that it will be minimal, but we don't have any hard evidence at our disposal to justify that conclusion. Therefore, prudence would dictate that we hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

The second quote attributed to me is more troublesome. According to Mr. Guido:

Hyatt said individuals should have a three-day survival kit on hand to ride out any disruptions in power or food supply. Each kit should include three days of non-tap water, canned food, batteries, flashlights, battery-operated radios and so forth. A gallon of bottled water should be purchased and set aside for each member of the family for three days or more.

I have to assume that the attribution to me is the problem here. This sounds like something written by the Federal Emergency Managament Agency (FEMA) or the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion. Anyone who has heard me speak or read any of my writings knows that I have recommended -- and continue to recommend -- far more substantial preparations than a "three-day survival kit."

The three-day preparation recommendation is based on the assumption that the impact of Y2K will be minimal and that any problems stemming from it will be quickly resolved. I do not share this assumption. If organizations have been unable to remediate some of these systems after working on them for years and spending millions of dollars, why would we think they can fix them three days after they fail?

I have argued -- and continue to contend -- that the three-day-winter-snow-storm analogy being promulgated by the Clinton Administration and the mainstream media is more about trying to control public perception of the Y2K problem than trying to accurately report the facts as we know them today. In other words, it is spin, plain and simple. If you forget what they are saying and watch what they are doing, you will come to a completely different conclusion. (See my article entitled, "Actions Speak Louder Than Words" at http://www.michaelhyatt.com/editorials/actions.htm).

So how bad is it going to be? Again, I don't know. But I am certainly preparing for more problems than can be handled by a "three-day survival kit." In fact, my family has prepared for a year's worth of disruptions. Even with that, I am feeling underprepared. But given the uncertainty of this event and, more importantly, what is at stake, I would rather be safe than sorry.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Hyatt

Author of THE MILLENNIUM BUG and THE Y2K PERSONAL SURVIVAL GUIDE

-- Michael S. Hyatt (mhyatt@michaelhyatt.com), December 17, 1999

Answers

Nice job, Michael. You Sir, are an honorable man, and I thank you for following through with this, and also for everything you have contributed to Y2K awareness over the last few years.

Thank you, and best wishes in the year 2000.

Via con Dios

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), December 17, 1999.

Mr. Hyatt,

I am sorry to have to disagree with Hawk, but I think that what you have written here is not very good writing, for the following reasons:

(1) You should not begin the letter saying thanks. When the reader sees a Baptist press article that starts out with a Thank You, he is likely to roll his eyes and move on to the next article.

(2) Your argument is weakened, not strengthened by the choice of words, "I am concerned about an article which you ran a little over a week ago." Mr. Hyatt if having your name smeared and having the Y2K issued pooh-poohed once again does not outrage you then you have clearly become too fat and comfortable. Mr. Hyatt we are being lied to in this country. The president of this nation is a moral rebate who is leading our nation into a state of moral decadence. If you are no more than "concerned" then it is time for you to step aside and allow others to take up the battle for you.

(3) The worst point of the Baptist press article  regarding the ridiculous "three-day survival kit." did not appear until the sixth paragraph. The handful of readers who make it that far will have to blink a few times at that one. You should have spoken up about this in the FIRST or SECONG SENTENCE of your letter.

(4) I believe organizations are spending billions, not "millions". I believe that one American bank has spent $100,000,000 by itself.

(5) You are wordy. One paragraph starts with a 49-word sentence. Yes, sentence length matters. The message would be clearer if you had used only half as much words.

(6) You are mentioning your Y2K books at this late date. Why?

-- Rick (rick7@postmark.net), December 17, 1999.

Good letter, Michael. It clarifies things!

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), December 17, 1999.

Rick I thought it was a wonderful letter and Mike is a wonderful man, do you think you are big enough to take over, what is your problem? He helps alot of people more than I see you helping.

-- sandy (rstyree@overland.net), December 17, 1999.