In the current issue of Time magazine (issue dated March 15, with picture of Monica Lewinsky on the cover), look on the table-of-contents page. At the bottom is some boilerplate about trademarks and subscription information. Two sentences have been added this week:

Subscribers: In the event that we are unable to effect the delivery of your subscription to Time magazine for any reason beyond our control, our obligation is limited to the resumption of your subscription when we are able to do so. If we remain unable to resume delivery within 24 calendar months from the date of interruption, we will have no further obligation under your subscription agreement."

This warning hasn't been there in the past. That's quite a caveat from the lawyers of the world's largest media and entertainment business.

It's probably not coincidental that it appeared within 2 weeks of the GAO report criticizing the U.S. Postal Service on Y2K progress.

-- five (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999

Answers

Amazing observation Five. Note to self: cancel all subscriptions in October. I am going to check this observation out myself.

If this is accurate, at least we can see Time had the vulgarity to display its panic after making laughingstock out of the "little people."

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 12, 1999.

This is absolutely accurate! I work in a Library and we received the new Time today. I hadn't even noticed it until I saw this post. I went and checked for myself. There it is in black and white and it is even in bold print. Sharp eyes, five!

-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), March 12, 1999.

This notice would have been inserted at the behest of the "business" part of the organization. The editorial part of the operation is under separate control, and still seems to be clueless (see p. 26 of same issue).

"Respectable" media pride themselves on what is termed "separation of church and state"--to borrow a constitution al phrase--meaning that there is a firewall between business side and editorial side. The point being to prevent large advertisers etc from having any input in editorial decisions.

-- five (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999.

High five, five. A most astute finding. What does one with your perceptive abilities see in store for us re. y2k and economy?

-- a (a@a.a), March 12, 1999.

Well for what it's worth... Aside from Y2K, I believe the world has been in a period of rolling disinflation/deflation for several years, and it is fast tipping into depression. The U.S. is only propped up by flight to quality as well as the open money-supply spigot that Greenspan has been manning--especially since the Asia currency debacle last summer followed by Russian default. And all that new money has been going to the stock market, which I definitely believe is a huge bubble about to burst.

More recently, durable goods orders have shown a huge increase in electronic-equipment purchases, driven, I think, by Y2K remediation and to some extent by people preparing. Auto sales are booming, driven by DGIs who are spending their stock-market paper profits as fast as their stocks tick up, as well as by those people who are worried that there won't be any new cars & trucks around this time next year.

However, this morning's release of monthly consumer confidence figures showed a sizable drop, I heard, both for current conditions and for the "expectations" component, which measures consumer confidence six months out. I think that is because Y2K fears are starting to seep into the broader populace.

And even if Y2K is mild, the economy will take a hit next year because of business and consumer "stockpiling" this year. Blah, blah, blah...

All this has been speculated on before. The unknown is the severity of Y2K. But I believe the Y2K issue will build in the media and in the public's mind. Consumer spending is a huge part of the economy--30%--if the consumer loses confidence because of Y2K, we will see money pulled out of the market and banks big time. Much of that will go to preparations, much under the mattress. The "island fortress" of the U.S. economy, which has so far weathered the economic woes of the world--indeed has even greatly benefited from them in terms of cheap imports--will be caught up in the depression.

Personally, I agonize about whether to quit my job so that I can cash out my 401k, much of which is tied up in company stock.

Needless to say, if Y2K is much more than a 3, the economy is toast, to borrow a Yardeni phrase.

-- (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999.

Wow Five! This gives a new meaning to reading Time "cover to cover"! LOL, what a catch!

It certainly is there, in bolded among the rest of the fine print at the bottom of this week's copy, wasn't there on the Feb. 22 issue that I didn't throw out yet.

I wanted badly to cancel my subscription after the infamous article, but hubby refused :-| Well, maybe this will change his mind ;-) (as if)

-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), March 12, 1999.

Five, I'd recommend you go ahead and take a seat on the floor so you don't hurt yourself when you are rudely snatched into a ROTFL state.

I called the Time subscription line (1-800-843-TIME) and asked them if they put that disclaimer in because of y2k. After about a five minute hold period, the young fellow came back and said that it had nothing to do with y2k. He said that, for instance, if a delivery truck burned up and burned your Time magazine that would be beyond Time's control and if you didn't assert your claim within two years, then Time would not have to replace your magazine. Hey! That's what the guy said. Poor fellow.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 12, 1999.

yes, and pigs fly...

-- (five@andcounting.com), March 12, 1999.

Even if we get it straight from the horse's mouth, the horse is lying. Right. When you use your conclusions as your assumptions, you cannot be wrong.

TIME is known to be clueless. I wonder where they got religion all of a sudden? Correction: double religion. They not only expect a 24- month inability to deliver, they're even aware enough to lie about it already.

Well, as Vinny would say, nothing is too far-fetched for the True Believer.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 12, 1999.

Flint: Of course the guy from Time would not admit that this was in secondary to y2k. First, he probably was a general flunkie and hadn't a clue (like the rest of the editorial staff). Second, do you really think he would have a job long if he DID admit it?

I usually like to read the back and forth between you (Flint) and others of opposing views. However, your constant negativism regarding other's views on this and that is becoming exceedingly wearing. Just because the majority of the folks on this forum think that something is going to break--whether it be a 2 or a 10--that is their priviledge. I thought I had noticed a difference of tone in your posts, more skeptical of the government and a little more accepting of other viewpoints. Either I was wrong or you have had a REAL bad day.

We're here to converse, educate and, if need be, disagree. But not EVERY DANG POST!! I realize that I have the same option as you. If I don't like it, don't read it. I may not like it but I guarantee that I'll get something from each and every post here. If not education, then at least entertainment. Some advice......tone it down. Don Rickles, you ain't.

-- Lobo (Hiding@woods.com), March 13, 1999.

Lobo:

You may be right about Time Magazine. But we seem to have done all the investigation we can, and it came up negative. So the reading of y2k into this new masthead registers pretty high on my BS meter.

As Freud said, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 1999.

I think five is correct in his assessment. If it was never there before, there has to be a reason it was inserted now...after all the delivery truck could have burned several times in the last few years right??? They weren't worried about it before! They just didn't expect anyone to find their little tidbit..after all..how many people would have read that little print??? They are just backpeddling..they wanted it as a trump card later on. Good find five!

BTW..off subject..did anyone see CNN this morning and the short blip about nova exploding and piece possibly on crash course to earth?? Then they blew it off..very short but if one was paying attention...made one stop and think...no flames..just telling you what I heard.

-- Moore Dinty moore (not@thistime.com), March 13, 1999.

Good catch, five!

Flint, et. al., perhaps we should all start paying more attention to the "fine print" and sudden changes therein.

Remember, the corporate lawyers are "getting ready."

Y2K legislation protection will likely pass in Congress next week. Accordingly, companies have to prove they did everything possible to get Y2K ready and inform their supplies and customers, in order to be legally protected.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 13, 1999.

Lobo and Diane:

After some thought, I've decided you're probably right. Y2k probably did play into the decision to add this clause. This might not be the magazines official position, but it was likely in the back of some lawyers mind at the least.

If mail can't be delivered for 24 months, not getting my issue of Time Magazine will be the least of my problems!

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 1999.

Flint> Sorry 'bout that. I like your posts too much to stay mad. Even if I don't agree, they make me think and that I can appreciate. PS..I can sympathize with that mail room kid. Must be bad to be on the bottom of the food chain.

-- Lobo (Hiding@woods.com), March 14, 1999.

My subscription expires in OCT99. I don't think renewing for one year would be a good deal since there'll be a lot of burning delivery trucks in the big cities.

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), March 14, 1999.