Just to let people knowgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
I work for a large corporation supplying tech parts to numerous aircraft manu's and the DOD. I will be quitting my job in just over a month. Then I can let the world know my identity. For now let me just say our entity will NOT survive the rollover. I for one am bailing on a six figure salary so I don't have to rearrange deck chairs on a sinking ship. Another item involves senior DOD Members making private or OTR comments to me. Let's just say they have purchased their generators and other worst case supplies. What you are hearing from all levels of the government is spin at best.
-- NotaLot2Lose (Somefirstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999
That's bad news and good news. If you can persuade folks to prepare, you might be able to prevent much misery. Some journalist would probably love your story. Keep us tuned in.
-- Puddintame (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
Hey notalot2lose, you don't give usalot2verify. No wonder no one believes this anonamous crap from anonamous people who work at anonamous places.
-- NoneBoy (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
-except us other people, who work at similar places...
-- Dano (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
NoneBoy, my fellow anonymous poster -
"NotaLot" stated that he is bailing in just over a month. Assuming no change, he can then check in with the forum in mid-June, reference this post, and fill us in. No big.
Why so upset about that? Seems prudent to me, and I for one will be glad to get more data from folks who have "NotaLot2Lose" once they can speak freely.
-- Mac (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
Arent you afraid of the legal repercussions? I mean, even after you leave, cant they sue you for slander or libel or something?
-- Goombah (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
It wouldn't have mattered if NotaLot gave you his correct E-mail, his SS number, his employment specs, his shoe size, boxers or briefs preference and pertinant documentation to back up what he has stated - --- you stupid pollytrolls wouldn't have believed him anyway, whether he was anonYmous or not.
I think Mr. Poole would say something like; "I don't accept the premise that the DoD suppliers would allow themselves to become defunct after the so-called "rollover."
In other words, if you don't accept the premise that we're in big trouble....anything and everything that may indicate Y2K trouble is automatically ignored as "immaterial".
"Let's talk about your state of mind" I think is the direction they'd rather see the discussion go.
Talk about heads in the sand? Sheesh!
-- INVAR (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
While I believe this story (and I also believe there's quite a few such stories out there), I'm a bit hungry for the details I hope we get in a month. Like, what's the problem, and what's being done about it, and who knows what's really happening on that project and who doesn't and why not. Even at this late date, really good case studies of what *not* to do might be helpful somewhere. They can't hurt.
-- Flint (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
I admire your courage, and also your (previous) salary. 8<) Let me know how I can help, if needed.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
NotaLot2Lose-----This information that you just gave us is exactly the reason I read this forum on a regular basis. Thank you very much for such an honest post. I understand why you have to keep your identity hidden. I,m going to print this post out and in the middle of June I'm going to start another thread and ask if you will supply us with a few more details. So lets say on June 15, I'll post a new thread labelled "TELL US SOME MORE NotaLot2Lose" You and the rest of this forum will be hearing from me 792 hours.
-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), May 13, 1999.
Can't NotaLot2Lose sue under that whistle blowers law or whatever its called? I mean he's talking about the Department of Defense. Isn't that law suspose to cover stuff like this?
-- Johnny (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
What I'd say is that some of you folks are more gullible than I dreamed possible before I started looking into this Y2K thing.
This is no better than the "hospital that shut down" story that was posted here last week. Absolutely no way to verify it, no hard data give, and yet ... you believe it.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
Thank you for trying to warn us. You say you are leaving your job in a month - are you moving to a rural location?
-- Scarlett (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
Sir Stephen - give me any reason to believe Clinton's administration's publicity.
He is evidently reporting conditions and problems as he sees them - why do you believe he is wrong?
What is his motive to post incorrect information?
What is Clinton's motive to publicize misleading statements and outright lies? Who has lied before? Who has a stronger motive to lie now?
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 13, 1999.
Since there is no way to verify any of this I will disgard it for now. But come June, I will remember. I hope to have more answers to alot of things by then as well. My question is why June? Is something supposed to happen then or is that a good time to change jobs or do you have enough set back to ride out the rest of the year? If this is true, good luck to you. If not then I really wish people would stop having fun with us. We put up with enough as it is. Shellie
-- shellie (email@example.com), May 13, 1999.
It never fails.
Someone posts a first-person account like this. IMMEDIATELY at least two others jump on it saying "Nobody can believe this, it's not authenticated, it's a spoof, no way, he's just making that up, etc. etc.!"
All that tells me is that there is an enormous level of fear out there, unacknowledged by its possessors. Who defend themselves against their own fear by denying anything that might let it loose.
If this post is accurate no amount of argument will change the consequences of the matter reported. If this post is fraudulent there won't be any consequences. Why argue about it?
I don't know if it's true. I don't know that it's false. It's just a straw blowing in the wind. One of many nowadays.
But when you see the haystack blowing in the wind you have to think the wind is really blowing. Maybe it's just a little gust, and all you have to do is rebuild the haystack after it dies down. Or maybe it's the forerunner of an F5 coming over the hill. Who can tell? I think I'd wait in the storm cellar until the sky clears. That is, if I had a storm cellar.
-- Tom Carey (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 14, 1999.
Robert and Tom,
What would you say if I told you that some of these stories are circulated by teenagers who've gotten tired of writing viruses for Word and Outlook? It's an ideal environment for troublemakers, because gullible Netizens circulate the mayhem for free.
If you want to see how this works, take a look at the Article that my friend George Smith wrote for Gauntlet magazine. Be sure to read the story of Miskovic, who claimed to have downloaded nuclear secrets from DOD computers.
What you don't realize is that these kids get off on this stuff. They roll on the floor laughing at *US*, because we're so gullible that we'll crap like the Good Times virus ... or in this case, a story about a DOD contractor.
Y2K is enough of a problem without stories like these being circulated without question. I've picked on Drew Parkhill elsewhere, but I'll at least give him this much credit: HE doesn't post these things, because he KNOWS THAT THEY CAN'T BE VERIFIED. Until they are, they don't mean ANYTHING.
All I'm asking for is a little healthy skepticism here.
-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (email@example.com), May 14, 1999.
To All, Life is a possibility. Notalot2lose's post is a possibility. Mr.Poole's observations are a possibility. Polly's stance-possibility. Doomer's stance-possibility. Government assertions-possibility they are truthful. Better possibility they are lies. We all base our actions/inaction on our own perception of the possibilities. So,if there is 50% chance that y2k will be 50% as bad as possible,I personally,will try and be more than 100% prepared or as much as possible. It is possible I will not be fully prepared. Over-preparing is IMHO is impossible. It is also possible I'll get the livin' daylights flamed outa me. But it is certain that I am certain of the possibilities. Just one mans take on one helluva convoluted subject. GOD BLESS.
-- Tony C. (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 14, 1999.
If this is true, you're a freakin' chicken-shit wimp. You gonna be nice and comfy in your bunker paid for with your 6-figure salary? What the hell have they been paying you for?
If it's not true, you're an example of why paid trolls are more likely on the doomer side than on the polly side. What are you trying to sell?
-- yeah right (email@example.com), May 14, 1999.
Mr. Poole, well, now that explains your position. Everyone posting is a freaking teenage prankster just waiting to have a laugh on YOU.
"What would you say if I told you that some of these stories are circulated by teenagers who've gotten tired of writing viruses for Word and Outlook? It's an ideal environment for troublemakers, because gullible Netizens circulate the mayhem for free."
You obviously don't have any teenagers in residence, do you?
-- Betty (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 14, 1999.
I agree with you, Betty.
There's no way that post was written by a teenager. No way. Have you seen how these poor dopes coming out our public "education" system write and speak? "Like, I don't have, like, anithing to loose, like..."
I take postings like that with a healthy grain of salt too. But -- and this may be oversubtle on my part -- his use of the word "entity" was a mark of authenticity to me. I just don't think that anybody sitting down to create a hoax posting would have used such wording. Interesting.
-- David Palm (email@example.com), May 14, 1999.
Isn't it strange that with all the flame throwing we have not a single response from NotaLot2Lose. My take is that this is just a Troll having some fun. They know exactly what we want to hear, and they are playing with us. "sigh"
-- thinkIcan (thinkIcan@make.it), May 15, 1999.
If he is who he says he is, then he is a busy man. He'll be back when he's able and ready. Until then, we'll have to wait. I hope he is writing an extensive piece. I have learned much from others who have done the same.
-- Phil Morris (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 1999.
I am a healthy skeptic.
But, since I live in Silicon Valley, and know some people, and hear things that arent spoken of, in the local media ... Ill keep preparing ... big time.
Thanks, for your caring and concern pertaining to our gullible reasoning.
Personal experience and direct knowledge is a great teacher.
And one thing its taught me, is to ignore those who have proven they have nothing valuable to contribute.
Have a nice day. And do, look in your mirror from time to time.
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), May 17, 1999.
I'm not a lawyer (and I don't play one on tv. . .)but I did some research awhile back on "Whistleblowers" laws, and I think the general idea is:
1. If something bad happens to your job/benefits/etc. because you "blew the whistle" or people you worked with/for suspected you were "going to blow the whistle," then you're protected and can sue. I think you can allege wrongful discharge, etc.
2. I believe state laws (some are stronger than others) take precedence over Federal laws. Again--I'm not certain, but I seem to recall something along those lines.
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 17, 1999.