I am working on an expose of all the Y2K Huckters of Doom. I am taking suggestions on the top 15-20 Y2K hucksters and am trying to document as many of their profit-making enterprises as possible. Documentation is crucial. I am more interested in the "religious angle" false prophets (Gary North, Michael Hyatt, etc..) Let the nominations begin.

See http://www.americanwasteland.com/Y2KPage.html for my views and perspective on the hype, hoax and hysteria

D.Marty Lasley info@americanwasteland.c

-- D. Marty Lasley (info@americanwasteland.com), January 21, 2000

Answers

For "nutcase" huckster: Gary North

For "panicky" huckster: Yardeni

For "wise but wrong" huckster: Yourdon

For "anything for a buck" huckster: deJager

-- I'mSo (happy@prepped.com), January 21, 2000.

And for balance, you might mention the people who made NO money and spent HUGE amounts of time trying to help others. Paloma O'Reilly, Robert Waldrop, and Geri Gaudetti come to mind.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 21, 2000.

One can only hope that Mr. Lasley's next attempt at character assassination will be based on more info than he used when he wrote about Michael Hyatt.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002J31

What was their real motivation?

-- Fairness (in@the.media), January 21, 2000.

I VOTE FOR D.MARTY LASLEY OF WWW.ANERICANWASTELAND.COM!

-- PA Engineer (PA Engineer@longtimelurker.com), January 21, 2000.

Oops, forgot Susan Conniry. 'Course, it's always possible that balance isn't what you're looking for ...

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 21, 2000.

I would nominate myself, but unfortunately I'm not qualified, as I haven't made (or attempted to make) any money from my Y2K warnings. Sorry to disappoint you.

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 21, 2000.

I Know.. how about the three day winter storm,print up 50 Million dollars,put Up 50 million dollar bunkers crew...... I forgot......"Who was that again?""...........

-- bank teller (nine to five@working.com), January 21, 2000.

"And for balance, you might mention the people who made NO money and spent HUGE amounts of time trying to help others. Paloma O'Reilly, Robert Waldrop, and Geri Gaudetti come to mind."

Geri Giudetti*sp* was a seed huckster. I know several people who bought seeds from her.

-- (I"m@pol.ly), January 21, 2000.

Another related thread:

Hyatt's_response_to_D.Marty

-- (Just Keepin' You@Honest.Martydude), January 21, 2000.

I'd like to be in the expose. I warned my mother, but she didn't believe me and didn't give me any money. Do I qualify?

-- Kyle (fordtbonly@aol.com), January 21, 2000.

I am more interested in the "religious angle" false prophets (Gary North, Michael Hyatt, etc..)

Why? Is it because you think religious belief is superstitious, or is it because you think the religious angle will make it easier to convince your readers that Y2k is a hoax?

-- Motivation is a question that needs to be (asked@here.too), January 21, 2000.

Hmm, yeah, Geri does sell seeds, but didn't hype Y2k for the purpose, near as I can tell.

Gosh, Mr Lasley, I guess we all need to know what a "huckster" is, for the purposes of this thread. Wanna take a stab at it? For me it has to include (1) spreading unfounded y2k fear with (2) the goal of making money off the ignorant or gullible. Then "huckster" can't include anyone who's goal is to actually educate, or anyone who sells preps to people who understand the real dangers.

Alternatively (trying to read your intentions, here) it might be anyone who (1) ever talked about y2k and (2) gains anything from y2k preparations. Then "huckster" includes any programmer who ever mentioned y2k to anyone. Gee, that sounds a little broad.

Help, Mr Lasley!

-- bw (home@puget.sound), January 21, 2000.

Won't try and defend any of these men, they can do that for themselves, but not one of them received one thin dime from me, so where was all the big money made? If it hadn't been for Messers Heller, North, Lord, Yourdon, Yardini, and all the others we might all be sitting in dark homes, freezing cold, trying to warm our hands over a candle flame.

The message didn't turn out, so kill the messenger.

Australia was "supposed" to be one of the best prepared countries as far as y2k was concerned. Alas, from all the reports coming in they are in one mess after another. Here in the US, there are one set of problems after another, and for every one problem reported, there are more than likely hundreds swept under the carpet. And we're still not done.

Love 'em or hate 'em these men did us a service. If they made money, that's their business.

-- Richard (Astral-Acres@webtv.net), January 21, 2000.

Subject: Exposing Y2K Hucksters Dear Mr Lasley: If you are serious about your quest, why not get up a class action lawsuit?

I'll answer my own question: Because you have no case, except for character assassination.

Give it a rest, and get a life.

-- (drw@planetc.com), January 21, 2000.

You would be better served exposing you're paymasters, the Gov.com...

Biggest baddest hucksters out there.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 21, 2000.

Mr. Lasley,

So if an economist believes in his theories and (horrors!) writes them up in a text, he's automatically a "huckster"?

And if a religious person predicted the American Revolution both from a Bible prophecy and problems with British taxation, and wrote a book on this, he'd be a "huckster"? Oh, I get it -- he'd only merit the term "huckster" if the Revolution was somehow circumvented.

Oh, by the way -- I hope you're not planning on making any money, or getting any publicity or other benefit from your "expose" -- so of course, you'll be doing it anonymously -- right?

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

I nominate all the shills working for survivalist supply companies who posted here under assorted aliases.

The shills posted silly stuff about doom and devastation etc. in order to scare people into buying overpriced survival junk. What a way to make a buck! Shame on them.

-- panurge (panurge@rabelais.com), January 21, 2000.

How bout

CIA

FBI

Senate

IEEE

Red Cross

etc etc etc

-- (@ .), January 21, 2000.

Certainly, without a doubt, John Koskinen and Alan Greenspan. I mean, c'mon! 50 MILLION DOLLARS for a stupid Dee Cee Y2K "crisis center"??? 50 BILLION DOLLARS of extra currency flooding the system for non-existant bank runs????

These two immediately come to mind. Otherwise, CEOs and CIOs of major corporations like Citigroup, Chase Manhatten, etc., ought to be exposed for all the wasted money, resources, and outright scaremongering with Y2K.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), January 21, 2000.

Well Mr. Lasley, along with some valid nominee suggestions you will certainly hear from the resident loonies on this forum. These are the very dipshits that the hucksters scammed so you have come to the source of their profit taking. The bible thumpers have been picked clean by Hyatt, North, and company and they still are asking for more. As long as these idiots are out there the charlatans will have a rich hunting ground. Keep up your good work and make sure these scam artists are brought to task.

-- Wait4 (the@real.story), January 21, 2000.

D,

In all due respect, I did not see where your credentials/bio was listed on your site.

As far as the "religous angle", last I checked, there was freedom of religion in the US. Your point is unclear to me...what is your objective? Are you an investigation journalist? Do you wish to be viewed as benevolent? Are you a profiteer or a huckster? Or...are you truly a concerned citizen who is out to set the record straight?

But the big question is--why did the government spend so much money on y2k if it was never viewed as a problem? I sincerely hope you realize the significance to our national security if these systems were not operating properly, not to mention all of the other ramifications. When I discovered the amount of money spent by the gov, I trusted their lead and did some preps. No harm done.

I am not trying to "slam" you, I am simply curious. People make money from other peoples' fears everyday. Take a look at Security Systems, for example. Security System companies love to see crime promoted...it means they sell more security systems. Are they hucksters? Surely some of them are, and so it is wise to shop around. But I still wouldn't want to live in a house without a security system.

Did some people get a little carried away? Probably, but...considering some of the things that have happened over the last few years, it is understandable that some people would mistrust the "official" lines. The low morale of the Military is a reflection of a lack of trust in leadership. So, maybe some people got on the bandwagon, so to speak. But when it comes right down to it...we have a free will to choose our own perspectives.

If people want to be religious fanatics, it's their choice...doesn't bother me a bit. If somebody wants to make money...great...it doesn't bother me a bit. If you are out to save the world from the evil green meanies--go for it, but remember one thing...if you don't have all of your facts straight and you yourself do not have a pristine record--it may come back to "bite you in the butt".

Respectfully, ~Dee

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 21, 2000.

PS - Don't forget to add the CIA to your list of hucksters. Everybody likes to blame them for everything when it doesn't go as planned. They reported problems internationally, or did you forget that too D?

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 21, 2000.

And then there's this one.

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/11273.html

Excuse me but MY Community Service in Y2k is OVER for people like you: TRAINEE LEVEL is free. Now, if you would like to PAY............

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ back to main page ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by (208.189.71.48) cpr on January 21, 2000 at 05:18:42:

In Reply to: Re: Best quote on TV the most incometent grossly overestimated their ability posted by Peter Errington on January 20, 2000 at 20:24:45:

Excuse me: TRAINEE LEVEL is free. If you would like to PAY............

I prefer to do things in a business like manner. Since I have both the Academic training, business experience and 4 years worth of Y2k experience to answer your question in some detail, I see no reason you should object to PAYING ME for any information that might be useful to you.

Now that Y2k has passed, I can revise my former policy of never taking so much as a dime for anything involving Y2k from any side.

THEREFORE: the full scale discussion of your question requires about 4 weeks of my time. While you may think your question has a simple answer I can assure you it does not because I would vary depending on the devices used and the vertical market places the "system" might be used in.

I charge $2,500 DAY MIN. 2 weeks or $25,000 plus double expenses per diem if any travel should be required. Any costs associated with any Consulting work undertaken are billed at 3 times my cost.

If you would like to send a non-refundable deposit for the work and an RFP for the scope of the work, I will consider $10,000 to be enough. Funds need to be certified or by Bank Transfer.

Please understand that the non-refundable deposit of $10,000 is simply to cover my costs in time to study your RFP and write a preliminary Scope of the Work. Should I choose to do the work, it will become part of the overall payment which shall be not less than $50,000.

My email address is real. The following is required before we proceed:

a. The RFP for scope as discussed above b. Proof of funds from either your Banker or Lawyer c. The name of your Lawyer with contact information to enable my Lawyer to verify you as to background. d. A brief C.V. or resume detailing your business background. A statement that you have no criminal past nor pending legal action from your Lawyer will be sufficient re: your personal life. e. Transfer of the $10,000 to my account as per instructions of my Lawyer to yours. f. A legal release satisfactory to you permitting me to check your background. I rather abhor privacy invasions of any sort so my interest here would be solely in your business associations and would be conducted only from public sources. No credit or financial background checks would be conducted beyond b. and c. above. I only wish to make sure you have no associations with illegal or extremist organizations.

After the transfer of funds, I will review the RFP as to scope to determine whether or not I wish to answer your question about embedded systems. Again, should I elect not to proceed, the deposit is non-refundable.

I hope that this is satisfactory to you and you will choose to proceed knowing that I might decide not to do business with you for any reason I see fit.

Best, CPR buytexas@swbell.net

-- back in (your@own.backyard), January 21, 2000.

Since I have both the Academic training, business experience and 4 years worth of Y2k experience to answer your question in some detail, I see no reason you should object to PAYING ME for any information that might be useful to you.

d. A brief C.V. or resume detailing your business background.

I'd like to see some verification of CPR's "credentials" as a "Y2K expert". Of course, he has none, except in his own mind. However, with this message, he puts himself in the realm of "Y2K hucksters", possibly as the only valid entry. Good work, CPR!

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 21, 2000.

Wait4,

Well, I stripped away all your ad hominem, along with miscellaneous random eruptions from your post, and I found no argument. If you have one, please come back and present it in a civil manner and I'm sure you'll get a polite, reasoned response.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

Outside of a few people on the various internet Y2K forums, who cares? People have been selling their stock market predictoins for many years and many are completely wrong. Anyone with common sense knows that people who try to predict future events frequently get it wrong.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Now now, Steve.

He certainly seems like a Y2K Pro to *me*.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), January 21, 2000.

"Australia was "supposed" to be one of the best prepared countries as far as y2k was concerned. Alas, from all the reports coming in they are in one mess after another."

Really??? That's news to me and my family who happen to live *Down Under*, care to provide proof?? No,..... thought so!

"Here in the US, there are one set of problems after another, and for every one problem reported, there are more than likely hundreds swept under the carpet."

Please spare us the gory details of your poor housekeeping!! There are so many problems indeed, why, you'd think there have never been computer problems since the damned things wwere invented! "And we're still not done."

Uhhh,, yes we are! But of course, if you pathetic little trolls called doomers want to continue your cirlce jerk, be my guest!

-- your point being (nunya@business.com), January 21, 2000.

Dave Hall-who started and fed the embedded chip hype- which was "real" enough for individual people to worry about.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), January 21, 2000.

Well gee Eve, Im pleased that you could not find an argument in my post above because there was none. I was making a statement of opinion regarding the idiot doomers that permeate this forum. Are you upset that I didnt identify you by name? Pout no longer for you are a perfect example of the brainless morons that stink up the concept of common sense and reason. Wanna buy a letter?

-- Wait4 (the@real.story), January 21, 2000.

Well, -- (@ .) and KOS stole some of my thunder, but nobody has mentioned IBM yet. This is one of my favorites: <:)=

A recent internal publication issued by International Business Machines Corp. focused on the Y2K problem, advises employees around the world to make personal contingency plans and be prepared on personal finances, including putting aside some extra cash.

The special 1999 issue of IBM's Think magazine, headlined simply "Understanding Y2K," also advises workers to be flexible about vacation plans and to be prepared for unusually heavy workloads in the fourth quarter of 1999 and first quarter of 2000.

"In planning for the transition to 2000, nothing is being taken for granted, and few scenarios are too far-fetched," it warns.

For personal living preparations, it largely relies on the recommendations of the American Red Cross, available on the Internet at www.redcross.org/disaster/ safety/y2k.html.

"Stock non-perishable foods, water and medications you use regularly," the IBM publication says. "Have some extra cash on hand; fill your gas tank a day or so before New Year's Eve; and have blankets, gloves, flashlights and extra batteries on hand in case of power failures." (It suggests candles are hazardous.)

While the document says "there's no reason to panic," it also suggests that employees "should talk to your personal bank/credit union/health-care provider about whether they are ready." It also cautions people to "beware of rumours," particularly spread over the Internet.

While personal preparation suggestions are often cited by Y2K skeptics as coming from the lunatic fringe, it's quite another thing coming from IBM or the Red Cross.

But IBM acknowledges it has been essentially near "ground zero" in the whole Y2K phenomenon. In 1964, it reminds us, IBM introduced the System/360 mainframe, and used a two-digit year to conserve space on punch cards.

Indeed it is a former IBMer-- Peter de Jager -- who became dubbed the Paul Revere of the Y2K crisis when he issued his call for action in a 1993 article in Computerworld magazine, headlined "Doomsday 2000."

Last March, Mr. de Jager declared Doomsday had, in fact, been avoided, asserting that the world had at least broken the back of Y2K enough to avert the most far-out "end of the world as we know it" apocalyptic scenarios.

That doesn't mean there won't be days or weeks of disruptions. What's remarkable about the IBM publication is its repeated reminders that "all markets, all businesses, all governments and all communities are interconnected."

In fact, IBM's graphic descriptions of Y2K interconnectedness and interdependencies aren't radically different from the dire falling-domino theories of such Y2K doomsayers as Dr. Gary North and Joe Boivin.

"It's not enough to convert your own business, because you're not ready until your entire supply chain is," IBM says.

"It's not enough to live in a Y2K-ready neighborhood unless all its interwoven threads -- businesses, schools, neighbourhood associations, police and fire departments -- are ready. Y2K will throw these interconnections into sharp relief."

The publication warns of the billions of embedded chips contained in such diverse technologies as oil-drilling equipment, airplanes, medical devices and microwave ovens.

It says efforts to find and fix embedded chips will continue "well after Jan. 1, 2000." Mr. de Jager calls embedded chips the wild card of Y2K.

But Y2K, according to IBM, is not primarily about the way we code dates in computer software, hardware or components. Rather, "it's mostly about how information technology has spread throughout our economy, society and personal lives."

IBM recognizes that opinions about the consequences of not being Y2K- ready "range all over the map. Perhaps the biggest problem with Y2K is that no one knows exactly what will happen."

From its interaction with customers around the world, IBM does not see anything to support predictions of a global recession or some kind of "digital winter."

It says large U.S. organizations "should be ready," although it is "less certain ... how small businesses and less developed nations will fare... Many are on the move now, but they've got to pick up the pace."

IBM met with some internal resistance when it began one year ago -- relatively late in the game -- to gather data on contingency plans. It eventually came up with 10 scenarios "that could possibly go wrong -- from applications and systems failures to disruptions in utilities, telephone and public mail services." It called the exercise sobering.

That's why businesses have developed contingency plans and why individuals should also regard some personal preparations as a form of insurance against disruptions.

The Red Cross suggests having on hand at least a three-day supply of household staples. This is consistent with the most conservative Y2K- preparation gurus, who compare any possible disruptions to a weekend storm. There are plenty of Y2K experts who argue for a month or many months of supplies.

The Red Cross Disaster Supplies Kit checklist includes storing a gallon of water per person per day, non-perishable food, a first-aid kit, non-prescription drugs, various sanitation items such as toilet paper, tools such as flashlights and battery-operated radio, a non- electric can opener, warm clothing, extra eyeglasses or contact lenses and much more.

Canadian Y2K gurus would add to the list a supply of firewood for a fireplace or wood stove.

Don't wait until the final few weeks, since such supplies could be unavailable, scarce or very costly.

Coming from prominent Y2K gloom-and-doomers, such survival contingency plans might appear ludicrous. But when they come from IBM and the Red Cross, maybe -- just maybe --there may be cause to take at least the teensiest bit of personal preparations.

Besides, even if Y2K ends up a blustery gust rather than a raging storm, there's always the possibility a major blizzard or other act of God could strike.

Residents of Eastern Canada who suffered through the ice storm almost two years ago would have welcomed having a lot more than the Red Cross' three days worth of provisions. Mr. de Jager told CTV News last week that two or three weeks of provisions would be prudent.

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

Wait 4,

That statement to Eve was uncalled for...really hitting below the belt. No need for such a verbal attack. She is far from a brainless moron. You have made your point. I don't think she deserved that statement. You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that, but verbal assaults of that nature detract from the issue.

My question to you is: Why are you such an angry individual? Why do you feel a need to resort to childish name calling? What can't you state your point with facts or examples? Have you ever asked yourself these questions?

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 21, 2000.

Sysman I can see you did your home work which most people did not do that is why we have people like Marty asking the kind of questions they are asking. I would like to know why the people that did there homework and could see the possible danger in the y2k senerio the more inteligent people are called DOOMERS? I have read many of your reports over the year.I would like to thank all the inteligent people for there hard work and the links they provided me and others that were interested in doing the work to find out the truth about y2k.The hardest part about y2k was no one knew what was going to happen.

-- dizzy (been@there.com), January 21, 2000.

Dear DM Lasley,

-- (drw@planetc.com), January 21, 2000.

Dear DM Lasley, A couple of weeks ago, you had an "essay" on you site, which, basically said, that Michael Hyatt was a sheep fu**er.

-- (drw@planetc.com), January 21, 2000.

Hi dizzy,

I don't think I've ever seen "Marty" post here before. While his post is pollyish, even trollish, it may be a valid question.

It just ticks me off that "these people" "blame" Y2K on people like North and Yourdon. They did not create the problem. It was (is?) a very real problem. Hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars have been spent trying to fix this problem. It has disrupted my personal life for many years.

I consider people like North and Yourdon heros. Where would we be if they didn't sound the early alarm?

Nobody, not North, Yourdon, Cowles, Hyatt, DeJager, nobody has $.01 of my money. I don't need them to show me what I have seen with my own eyes in my past 32 years of programming.

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), January 21, 2000.

Dee,

I appreciate your kind response. I think it's a low self-esteem thing with these guys. They get a cheap rush of "self-esteem" when they insult people; it temporarily brings them up in their own eyes. The problem is that since it's a false sense of self-esteem, they need another "fix" soon again -- and then they're back at it.

-- eve (123@4567.com), January 21, 2000.

God sent Jonah to Ninevah, and, while Jonah didn't really want to go, he finally got there, gave God's warning and the people repented. God withheld his judgement.

The work got done, for the most part (and so far) because everyone threw enough money and personnel and time to get the job done. We should be thanking the 'Paul/Paula Reveres' for sounding the alarm. Why don't we stop killing the messengers?

Are you by any chance a lawyer, Mr. Lasley?

-- Connie Iversen (hive@gte.net), January 22, 2000.

Y2K was a real problem. It was a computer problem. It would was already being taken care of before they hypsters showed up. The only thing they did was bring a problem to the attention of people who were not equiped to do anything about it who worried needlessly. As with the thousands of problems that happen daily, there really was no need for "the man on the street" to bw involved, all he could do was worry about it.

Bringing it to the attention and hyping it up way out of proportion is what the hypsters are guilty of, especially the ones who hyped it up and kept it hyped up and did everything they could to discredit any and all "good news" or news of progress and those who reported it. It got pretty obvious towards the end when they would declair that "every" business that claimed they had done the work was lying.

There were those who honestly believed it would be bad and reported things they felt confirmed this, then there were the ones who went out of their way to convince others it continued to be bad because they had something to gain from it.

All of the entities that suggested that people prepare, at least a little bit, were not fear mongers, they were not possitive some other entitie would not fail, and like the people here, they believed there was no harm in preparing "just in case". Because of public outcry, many organizations went out of their way to encourage preporations, even the pollies would have been indignent if the red cross etc had not jumped on the band wagon.

As it was well known by many in positions to know, that as of January 1999, the reports on the infrastructure were given out confirming that they would make it. Unfortunatly there were just too many who had "whipped the masses into a frenzy" so that calm reasurances and details were wasted on them. After all, the people who "brought it out from secrecy" and warned them (out of concern) or so they thought, were telling them that these same people were lieing to them.

If the internet had not existed, then most of the people who basically had no reason to know about the Y2K problem, or at least not know about it in the detail that they did, would not have. In the background, the repairs would have been made and their would have been the odd failure here and there, just like now. It would have taken a frightened public to bring down the banks, not Y2K. If enough people had been convinced, then they would have panicked and caused it. As it were, some of the same things that caused some to panic, caused others to discount the possibility. As it were, I doubt there were many people in the modern world that were not holding their breath the minute the rollover started.

There is a big difference between those who honestly wanted to alert others to a potential problem and those who went out of their way to frighten people so they would buy their products, or just for some sick satisfaction over being able to frighten them.

There are people who like to frighten children, actually get some kind of sick kick out of it.

So yes, there are a lot of people guilty of propagating hype for their own reasons.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), January 23, 2000.

Cherri's post is eerily similar to something the Russian y2k guy (or some big guy in Russia) said in December. Anyone remember? He said something about not letting people in Russia know of any possible problems -"no need to frighten the children of Russia" or some garbage. Cherri mentions a couple of times about frightening people unnecessarily. I don't call knowledge of possible dangers frightening people. I call it sensible. So the sheeple should be kept asleep with a hundred channels, more booze and new cars? And TPTB can wisely control everything for everyone's benefit? Thanks, I don't want it.

Pramada

-- pramada (pram108@yahoo.com), January 23, 2000.

Posted by (209.245.175.72) Cherri on January 03, 2000 at 13:25:00: In Reply to: Cherri, Female Cyber-Savior... posted by Ladylogic on January 02, 2000 at 10:13:41:

: I'm sure this will be deleted within one minute at TB, so I'd like to honor you with it here:

: ______________________________________________________________________

: : Cherri,

: I will always be grateful to you for helping me make sense out of the embedded chip question. As far as Im concerned, your experience, intelligence, kindness, objectivity, and search for the truth, makes you the greatest female in history. I honestly do! I think your work has been more important than Elizabeth Doles, Golda Meir's, Madelline Albrights, or Gloria Steinhams. You are to be admired because you helped keep the insanity at bay on the net, while walking your own path.

: I think you truly are the first Female Cyber-Savior, and you have my vote for the "Flying Angel" award.

: Good work, Cherri!

: : ---/--@

LayLogic,

I saw how MAD you became when you saw the "other side of The Story" and decided for yourself that it would not be that bad.

It is hell being led into believing something that has such a profound effect on your life.

I would no more lie, or tell a truth I did not know to be true, then I would scare a little child needlessly. I'm not a hero, I'm just a person. Just like you and everyone else. The only thing I ask of anyone is to use their mind and think. It will save them a lot of heartache. Thanks for the sentiment though, I appreciate it.

_________________

And of course that conversation on Biffy about taking over and defusing this forum was just a joke -- right Cherri?

-- Go tell it (on@the.mountain), January 23, 2000.

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

Is it because you think religious belief is superstitious, or is it because you think the religious angle will make it easier to convince your readers that Y2k is a hoax?

Lasley has a documented fixation with Hyatt, and probably wants to incite this scary crowd.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 23, 2000.

Dear D. Marty,

I think maybe you should also factor in what 'MiKeY' has to say in your report (about 1/2 way down the page):

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Nv6

=============================

Then, mabye read this thread and see if you can include "a balanced picture" in your final "report".

Y2K...DID WE REALLY LEARN ANYTHING?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002I7J

====================================================

Or, maybe put away your NAILS?? (such enthusiasm!)

Or, maybe also point out what was 'right' about those people?

Or, maybe expose the Huckster's in Govt. Politics? Corps destroying environment? (Or are they "out of your League?") Do you think those people are making a profit too??

Or, maybe expose why People only see the worst in each other? You know, *those Hucksters* writing books TO MAKE A PROFIT at the expense of others, and pretty much mis-lead them in the same way as you are accusing them? Pot calling the Kettle black? (again!???)

Or, maybe expose Hypocracy for what it really is. You think those people are Y/OUR problem? Ever look outside your kitchen window...and see what's happening in the world? Want to expose that?

There are some great issues to focus on in the SECOND thread above (see the URLs to specific papers 1/2 way down)....take your pick!!!

Go For it....show us.

Sincerely (trying to get to what is important...)

-- ICE (ISee@ThruU.com), January 23, 2000.

And of course that conversation on Biffy about taking over and defusing this forum was just a joke -- right Cherri?

-- Go tell it (on@the.mountain), January 23, 2000.

Not a joke. Totally true in the intent and the fact. I wished to come over here and post other than what was commonly posted here. It was my intent to come here and post facts that were available, yet were not being posted here. It was my intent to dispute some of the things that were inaccurate. It was my intent to provide information here to anyone who wished to read it about areas of concern that were being fixed, to provide facts to disprove false areas of concern. It was my intent to give people who came here an opertunity to view and interperate for themselves wheather they should be concerned about the possible failures in areas where I have the knowledge to explain the facts to them.

For instance, and the main area, embeddeds. I felt that if I could explain how they worked, what they did, where they could or could not fail, them people would have the opertunity to make more informed evaluations. It was my full intent to come here and show anyone who was willing to listen, information that would ease their fears in areas that they were not knowledgble in. It is my belief that the fear some people were experiencing was unnecessary in the degree in which they were experiencing it. I wanted to ease people fears through facts and their own ability to interperate them.

I never have and never will deny that that was my main intent when I wrote that.

Fortunatly, for some people at least, I accomplished that goal.

It was my belief that a person who came here looking for correct evaluation of the Y2K situation was not getting it and I intended to provide at least a small amount of information that would lead them to question the validity of the views overwhelminly expressed here.

I have been honest and open with that fact.

I never asked or demanded or even expected anyone to take my word for what I said, I afforded them the respect of believing they had the ability to think for themselves and judge the information they read, from me or anyone else, for themselves.

I did not believe that it was necessary to resort to "tricks" or pressure, or any other form of manipulation in order to achive my goals. I did wish to ease people's fears, not eleminate them completly, as I felt that was not possible.

Hopefully I accomplished what I set out to do. It never was my intent to stop people from prepareing, as I have stated many time, I myself have been "prepared" for over a decade. As I, fortunatly, have the trining and experience to understand in greater detail than most people when it comes to "embedded", I chose to share that knowledge with others.

As fear has the tendancy to cloud judgment and the ability to think reasonably, by easing the fears people were experiencing, I believed they could then rationally decide for themselves where the areas of concern were valad and those which were not.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), January 23, 2000.

Hey Marty,

In all fairness, will you consider "chewing" on the following? Maybe find out whose these "Hucksters" are? Then, compare them to the "Y2K Hucksters" (your lable - you should see what MiKeY has to say about THAT! smile)

After your comparison, will you please consider "what" might be a little more important? (priorities) and 'who' is making the real money, or doing the most 'damage' to people? Maybe focus in on what would bring the greatest good to the most number of people?...so all that good investigative energy is not mis-directed? Maybe an expose on "Who REALLY is misleading who?"

Here is a selection list to choose from of "burning issues facing Humans on Planet Earth, circa YR2000:

Recent info released on "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (History Channel); Watergate; Whitewater-Gate; ZipperGate; Iran Contra (Regan- Bush administration's deal with Iyatola to keep hostages, to discredit Carter...to win the election- in exchange for weapons. It worked.) The Church Report (CIA), MK-Ultra, Montauk Project, Phidelphia Experiment, The Grace Report (Govt waste), San Jose Mercury News expose on CIA involvement in cocaine; MENA, Park-o- Meter (Arkansas); NAFTA, GATT, NWO, Savings & Loan Scam, Banking Crisis (never reported) Group 5, The Franklin Cover-Up, "Trance Formation of American', HAARP, Recent info released on the killing of Martin Luther King; Vince Foster; Ron Brown; Ruby Ridge, Donald Scott, WACO, the truth about Oklahoma City Bombing, TWA-800, recent reports on the environment (ice core samples, National Geographic report on "The Great Extinctions"); Global Heat Balance/Crazy weather world around; Area-51, the ET situation, Greys and Abductions. COX report on transfer of tech to China. (Please...don't pretend folks...we all hear the above reports) even if we turn our backs in dis-belief and return to our jobs, soap operas, etc...does not mean, 'these problems are not there'. ('Just because you don't believe in conspiracy...doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you'...that idea. Just take a look at the history of wars, slavery, conquering and domination. That IS planet Earth, and has been for quite some time.)

Eat 'em alive Marty!!!!! Gobble 'em up!

Best, and acknowledging that though you may have your targets mixed- up...that your intention is to root out those who "truly" have hidden agendas. No prob there, just make sure the target you are looking for, *truly* fits the profile. Fair enough?

Sorry I didn't make that clear in my previous post above; my oversight and my apology to you.

-- ICE just4U (ISee@ThruU.com), January 23, 2000.