|
|
. . . "When we first started to write about this, it was a really simple outline: We used two-digit years; it's a problem; we better start working on this now. And by the way, it's going to cost a lot of money. We said that time and time and time again. But no one was listening. We made the assumption, naively, that once people understood there was a problem, they'd go off and fix it. So we had to change the tone and go into this mode: Listen, you dumb shmuck, don't you realize that if you don't fix this, your company's going to go in the tank? At some point, you have to turn it around, not to create fear, but to concentrate on the consequences of inaction. If you know a different strategy, I wish you'd have been around to tell me, 'cause this was the only thing that worked."
Such a tactic, he added, has its downside: "I wish we never had to do that. I wish I didn't, during interviews, have to talk about the consequences of failure. Because what happened was people who had no right knowing about Year 2000, who had no control over Year 2000, now became aware that there was this big problem that people weren't paying attention to. But it was the only way to communicate to management, to businesses, to government. ... While it did introduce activity amongst those who could take action, it also produced anxiety amongst those who had no control. So now, today, I believe that while the technical problem has been fixed, it's being surpassed or replaced by the problem of panic."
================
"People who had no control" over Y2k have NO RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
PEOPLE WHO HAD NO RIGHT KNOWING ABOUT Y2K....
Think about those words. PEOPLE WHO HAD NO RIGHT KNOWING ABOUT Y2K.
There was this 'big' problem that NOBODY was doing anything about and YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT. A 'problem' that could cause severe and life threatening problems and YOU HAD NO RIGHT TO KNOW ABOUT IT.
What an arrogant asshole. Please define exactly who it is that DOES "have control" over Y2K?
Take this one step further. He says that the technical problem HAS BEEN FIXED.
Y2k is 'fixed' and YOU had no right to know that it was ever on the horizon. YOU HAD NO RIGHT.
de jager could hardly have sunk to more pathetically laughable lows. What a moron.
http://www.newmassmedia.com/nac.phtml?code=wma&db=nac_f...
--
Paul Milne
If you live within five miles of a 7-11, you're toast.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
|
-- a (a@a.a), May 11, 1999
Answers
thanks a (a@a.a),
I saw this too and I was kinda overwhelmed by how little his
statements surprised me. That is until I read this,
"...now, today, I believe that while the technical problem has been
fixed..."
What? What? What world is he living in? This is the guy who 6 months
ago was preaching doom and saying there was simply NO TIME to fix
everything and now "the technical problem has been fixed"?
But then he goes on, "it's being surpassed or replaced by the problem
of panic."
ahhh...the old panic thing. Would I be correct in assuming that de
Jager does business with financial institutions?
I haven't seen any panic thus far.
Where is the panic he is speaking of?
Where is this problem of panic that has surpassed or replaced the y2k
problem?
The y2k problem has "produced anxiety amongst those who had no
control" but I have yet to see anyone panic.
I wonder how much green de Yager has socked away just in case. I
wonder how truthful he is being.
I keep thinking class action for misrepresentation. Anyone else
interested?
Mike
==========================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 11, 1999.
I think deJager has plenty socked away. He admitted to this. Go read
North's links to deJager's comments. I'm really sick of that arrogant
porker.
-- GeeGee (GeeGee@madtown.com), May 11, 1999.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, nothing better than seeing someone blast a very
straight forward statement with tons of screaming and swearing. And
they say that polly's DGI.
-- Pat (BAMECW@aol.com), May 11, 1999.
Pat, I am stunned by your simplicity. Your sound like an asshole.
Was my one cussword a ton of profanity? If so, yep, you're an asshole.
Reread DeJaegers comment. It probably applies to you too.
He does not think you are smart enough to handle this information. Maybe he's right about "you".
-- Still (Still@trying.com), May 11, 1999.
I used to think that Peter de Jager was a great man. He was the
first person that I know of to bring Y2K to the public's attention.
I now know him to be a big, fat, greedy idiot. He's got his, and the
rest of us can go to hell. You can bet that he has his little
vacation retreat stocked with food (lots), cash, gold, and guns.
-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), May 11, 1999.
Incredulous wrote:
[de Jager is] "a big, fat, greedy idiot. He's got his, and the rest
of us can go to hell. You can bet that he has his little vacation
retreat stocked with food (lots), cash, gold, and guns."
ummmm...why,then, is he planning to be halfway over the Atlantic at
rollover? Kinda hard to defend his stash when he is 3000 miles away
from it.
-- Johnny Canuck (nospam@eh.com), May 12, 1999.
Johnny Canuck,
De Jager knows that all commercial and charter flights will be
grounded during the rollover. He is handing out B.S. when he says
that he will be in the air. He joins that other famous prevaricator,
FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, in lying about flying at New Years.
-- Incredulous (ytt000@aol.com), May 12, 1999.
Pat and de Jagermeister are twins, separated at birth. de Jager is
the alpha dog. Pat is the "lap" dog. de Jager proves he is a fool in
inreviews, Pat proves the same on this forum.
Sleep well, both of you.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 12, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ