Posting History

"Despite considerable progress in the last three months, defense is still well behind schedule," said Jack Brock, director of government and defense information systems for the GAO. According to a GAO survey, only 42 percent of DoD installations have completed Y2K corrections so far. And, over 600 buildings which are used by DoD staff but administered by other agencies are at risk because building owners have not provided Y2K data. Nor, the GAO maintains, does the Pentagon "have good data" on the readiness of overseas installations, which depend on other countries for power, fuel, water and other services.   -----   What is it that Jack Brock understands that the imbecile robert brock does not? Oh, yeah...it's called the truth.   Oh yeah, one more little point from the article...   "With personnel, equipment and facilities spread over 660 locations around the world, the Department of Defense uses 1.5 million computers and 28,000 computer systems to collate and disseminate information and to ensure that firepower can be directed swiftly and accurately. "   "The agency expects that all of its 2,304 mission-critical systems will be Y2K-ready by the time the date rolls over. "   Geeeee! Really? Ya mean ALL 2300 out of ***28,000*** will be ready. I am real assured now that those FEWER than ten percent of the totality of systems will be ready.   The DoD is FLOUNDERING.   "The Pentagon has also come under fire from Rep. Stephen Horn, R-Calif. According to Horn, the DoD reported 81 percent compliance of mission- critical systems last December, but reported only 72 percent compliance just weeks ago. "This discrepancy shows that either the department has taken a huge step backward in its Year 2000 readiness, or the department is inconsistent in what systems are critical to its mission," said Horn, who chaired the Government Reform subcommittee hearing. "Either way, I am concerned by this inconsistency."     You ought to be deeply concerned too. The government is not being 'inconsistent'. They are lying. They are going under and they are LYING.   Do you undestand what 'huge step backwards' means?   http://year2000.dci.com/Articles/9905194.htm 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 20, 1999

Answers

* * * 19990520 Thursday

"a" -

This "news" has whiskers a mile long on it. USA exposed DoD lying about their Y2K progress in the Thanksgiving ( 1998 ) weekend edition.

Milne is merely reiterating this for effect upon the DGIs/DWGI's/WNGI's!

FAIR WARNING!! ...

Regards, Bob Mangus < rmangus@hotmail.com > * * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus@hotmail.com), May 20, 1999.

I really hate to be mr. kill joy but I think DoD is quiet for many reasons. If you guys really know what your talking about, I'm sure the Chinese, Russians, Iraqi's etc would be happy to be informed by you foreign C.I.A. types. All they really need to know is how we are doing so they can plan a strategy. If you guys had your heads screwed on as Tried and True Americans, You would Quit typing information critical to their Quiet Agenda's. I know the freedom of speech is yours to enjoy, however, try not to spoil it for the rest of U.S.......Unless you are on someone elses side. Get it or Don't wanna get it. Thanks but no thanks for the info.

Sinceriously, Feller

-- Feller (Feller@reallywanna.help), May 20, 1999.

Feller,

This is hardly classified information. Opinions are cheap, and here's my cheap opinion: The Russians, Iraqis and Chinese are not coming to this forum to decide whether to attack someplace.

The Russians won't be able to feed themselves, much less attack, next year. The Chinese will feed themselves, but all the pirated software they have stolen will bite them in the butt. The Iraqis are pissed and haven't been inspected in six months. What revenge do they have planned?

As the robot in "Lost in Space" would say in the 60's show, "DANGER DANGER DANGER"

-- Doug (douglasjohnson@prodigy.net), May 20, 1999.

I'm suggesting that every little bit hurts. Also, you are making assumptions on how they doing based on an educated guess. I know about the freedom of speech but I'm also aware of how other people in other country's conduct themselves. If you want to add to our self- disclosure, be my guest.

Sincerly, Feller

-- Feller (feller@wanna.help), May 20, 1999.

Robert: This is new news. The link above does not work. Use this

Story here

Feller: This is a public domain site. If Milne can find it, Moscow can find it.

-- a (a@a.a), May 20, 1999.

I really don't think you should worry about giving away any "secret" information. Past history has shown that our enemies have always had more vital information that the general public knew anyway. Russia was *building* military equipment from information they got at the highest levels of security. Stuff that us grunts didn't even know about. Whatever we are saying here is being said by the many government agencies, behind closed doors, and that information is being leaked directly to those who can do us harm. Bank on it! All we're doing here is attempting to educate ourselves. The one's who will do us harm are already educated beyond our wildest dreams.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Well lets see....

Milne on government....

that's about like Saddam Hussein on the state of democracy...

Or John Wayne Gacy on the state of the penal system....

or....

-- Chicken Little (panic@forthebirds.net), May 21, 1999.

Shoot the messenger, eh Chicken? How about a comment on the facts presented above instead of your hit-and-run non- contributions to this forum?

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

Sorry, Chicken. That's another ad hominem attack, and proves nothing. It doesn't matter if Milne is an inmate at an insane asylum, or a Klan member, or a National Socialist (Nazi) or a government troll -- he may still make true statements, and those statements stand or fall on their own merits. You must rebut the arguments, not the man. Is it any less true that 2 + 2 = 4 if a janitor says so instead of a mathematician? Take some time to acquaint yourself with the rules of thought before opening your mouth.

-- DMH (aint@tellin.com), May 21, 1999.

Hye....I got it!! I'm an old lady....pick me for the answer. I can remember (sometimes) *LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS. Yea....I got, I got it!!!!!!

Taz who is going round the bend.

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Geez, I find myself included in a post to a fourm that I rarely read and have never posted to. Is the only way that Mr. Milne can win a discussion to post it where the person being talked about probably won't see it?

However, this is typical so I'm not too suprised...

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 21, 1999.

Don't be so vain Bob. I posted it, not Milne, and you'll note that it deals with the state of DoD. 99% of the folks here have never heard of you, and they should consider themselves fortunate.

-- a (a@a.a), May 21, 1999.

Not any more Monte...thanks for the invite.

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 21, 1999.

Bob:

For a while, Milne tried to crosspost my posts here over to csy2k in the hopes that his sycophants there would back him. Unfortunately, the tide turned against him and he gave up the effort. It takes some courage to stand on your own, and Milne clearly lacks it. But you're certainly welcome here -- your csy2k contributions have been a breath of fresh air from the start.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 21, 1999.

More like a breath of intestinal gas. Here's Bob at his best:

Subject:	Re: For Sub-Moronic Cretins Like brock
Date:	1999/05/19
Author:	fedinfo <fedinfo@hal ifax.com>
	Posting History

In article <3740c3cd.0@news4.his.com>,   "Bob Brock" <bbrock@i-america.net> wrote: > > fedinfo@halifax.com wrote in message <7hqeee$bfg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > > brock does not like it when the news is less than rosily optimistic. > >he does not like it when a survey of the financial staus shows that > >companies have not spent near enough money to be done. He calls this > >trash. Now we have CAP GEMINI CONFIRMING the SAME thing. I suppose > >brock will call Howard Rubin an idiot and black-hearted opotunist and > >fear-monger because he relates that the FACTS show the job, not only is > >NOT getting done, but that they are falling behind at an increasing > >rate...... > > SNIP > > Paul, from your own article: > > For all the problems, the respondents seem confident in their ability to > manage their way through Year 2000 disruptions. Three out of four said that > their Year 2000 programs will give them a competitive advantage, the survey > found. > > Did they say it will give them a "competitive advantage"?  Yes...I do > believe they did.  Is this going to be another one of those newspaper > articles where you only want to believe half of it? > > You need better material... > >   LOL LOL LOL LOL   brock, you unmitigated fool. That statement was used as an "example" to show how the company's statements about themselves were completely out of sync with the FACTS.   ROTFLMAO ROTFLMAO   Apparently you completely missed the part where Rubin stated that a company does not even find out that it is late until the last thirty days. Of cpourse they 'think' they will end up in a batter state of affairs. That simple underscores their INCREDIBLY naivte.   LOL LOL LOL   -- 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.---

Here Milne does what he does best, presents FACTS. And Bob does what he does best, emphasize the wishful thinking of the corporate PHMs. The article details schedules slipping. Costs escalating. Relations with non-compliant suppliers severed. Clear stats saying that at least 22% of large companies will not finish remediating their mission critical systems. US companies. Not small businesses, which are hopelessly behind. Not foreign companies that have not really even begun. Not non-mission critical, that is being ignored. 22% will not finish mission critical. Spelled out in B&W, plainer than the nose on your face. "But its OK -- they think they'll do fine."

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

Oh, and welcome aboard Bob.

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

Flint, as I first argued with you almost a year ago, Paul Milne is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Folks like Bob, you, bks, Don Scott, Egan, Dechert, and the rest of the c.s.y2k pollys ARE the problem at this point. They, and their counterparts in media, corporations and govt, have effectively eliminated the public's belief that they should prepare. Now we are faced with a world that will enter this period of crisis expecting nothing worse than a few days of minor inconvenience.

It's some kind of game with you. You've prepared to the hilt, but now you sit back and take potshots at those that try to persuade people to take y2k seriously.

""Almost everyone who has studied the problem admits that it really is a problem. But saying that it's a problem is too vague. It tends to lull people into a sense of complacency. "A problem" doesn't sound too bad. Whenever anyone dismisses the Year 2000 issue as merely "a problem" -- just one among many -- beware.""

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

Gee, triple "a" with an @, I'm kind of new to this forum so I get confused real easy with the mechanics of the webpage. I thought that Paul Milne posted this article to this forum to begin with, but you told me that he didn't and you did. Now, when I click on that little thing that says "posting history" at the top of this page, I get the posting history of "fedinfo@halifax.com.

Why is it doing that? Go ahead...try it and see what happens. That's really strange isn't it?

ROTFLMAO

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 22, 1999.

uh, no not really. Its standard HTML, cut and pasted from within netscape using a dejanews reader. It's his post on USENET, so it contains links to his news group files.

What is your profession anyway, snake charming?

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

Nah, I just do that part time.

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 22, 1999.

So how do you like it here? Neat how fast the posts update huh?

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

It beats CSY2k. My server only picks up about half the posts and the new DejaNews is the pits. At least this way I know I'm seeing it all.

BTW, isn't the article that Paul posted talking about buildings? That's what Jack is talking about. Paul quotes the article, cites the 42% statisic and then jumps to talking about crtical systems. The article says that all of the critical systems will be ready. Somehow, Paul makes the jump from all critical systems will be ready to the DOD is floundering. Then Paul jumps to Horne being concerned about a discrepancy in the remediatied percentages and closes by saying that the government going under and is LYING. Now, if the DoD was lying why wouldn't they just be consistent with their lies? That way they could get away with it until rollover.

It's just typical Milineism. Talk about one thing, switch to another, and then throw in a third thing so that it appears that they are related when he gets through with the spin.

Who is one to believe? The DoD (government), the GAO (government),Horne (government) or Paul Milne? You, for whatever reason, picked Milne. Milne is the only one saying that they won't make it based on reports from a government that he says is lying.

So, I guess the real paradox presented by the article is can a Marine still be a Marine if the toliet doesn't flush? Or, does a Marine really need a toliet at all?

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 22, 1999.

The point of the post is that GAO, who has confronted DoD on several occasions falsely reporting progress, is claiming they are "still well behind schedule", which is, yet again, directly contrary to their official status. He also reiterates the FACT that they are remediating at best only a small percentage of their entire infrastructure.

"This discrepancy shows that either the department has taken a huge step backward in its Year 2000 readiness, or the department is inconsistent in what systems are critical to its mission," said Horn, who chaired the Government Reform subcommittee hearing. "Either way, I am concerned by this inconsistency."

Paul's right...you do have reading comprehension problems, don't you?

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

"a":

I'm not taking potshots at those who are trying to take this seriously. On the contrary. I criticize two things: distortions (mostly deliberate) and personal attacks (mostly empty). Unlike you, I don't believe the information needs to be distorted to get people's attention, as I've written before. I'm trying to determine what the ideal preparation would look like, and I think you should be too. If you think our information should be twisted beyond recognition just so long as you think the twister's heart is in the right place, then we're never going to agree.

As for DOD, the reports we've seen so far indicate that (1) They have a huge task, (2) They can't finish in time, (3) They are really working on it pretty furiously, (4) The many tasks they're working on are in every possible state of progress (or lack of progress), (5) their progress reports are inconsistent.

When I worked for DOD (indirectly, as a contractor) I noticed that they were always 'refining' their reporting procedures, and their definitions, and their requirements. At any given time, they could have applied the last three sets of reporting rules to where we stood and come up with three very different nominal statuses for exactly the same situation. I'm not defending this, I'm telling you how it works.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 22, 1999.

"a",

So you are one of those people who think that everything has to be fixed to be operational huh? Milne doesn't contend that there will be problems, nor does he contend that there will be failures. That's my scenerio. The Milne scenerio is that there will be a complete collapse of infrastructure with roving bands of starving people along with the deaths of 3 billion people. Bennet/DOD, the GAO, FEMA, and the Red Cross all say to prepare for failures.

Your support is Senator Horn saying, "Either way, I am concerned by this inconsistency." Is he saying that they won't make it? No. Is he saying head for the hills and buy a few acres in Virginia? No. Why do you even use it since Milne says they are all lies?

Milne will take statements from three people, none of whom agree with his scenerio, mix them up...put a little spin on it and say that it supports his position. That is after he quotes them only to turn around and say that it's all lies.

I don't have a reading comprehension problem. I do have a problem with using someone saying one thing only to have it turned into something else and I have a problem with the logical lapses indicative of propaganda.

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 22, 1999.

OK Bob, have it your way. The government doesn't lie, except when it's the auditors and inspectors talking.

And y2k will only be a, ah, "problem".

So why do you waste your time here? If it's such hype and doomer spin, aren't you foolish to dwell on the issue? Isn't this the equivalent of hanging out alt.disaster.asteroid? Do they have a calif.earthquake.big-one?

-- a (a@a.a), May 22, 1999.

"a":

Because I think that people like yourself may actually think that the scenerios presented by Milne and Infomagic are credible. Plus, I'm posting here because you posted an article that contained text about me. Remember?

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 22, 1999.

One day there will be statues of Gary North, Ed Yourdon, and Michael Hyatt in town squares. Paul Milne, Infomagic, and C. Hamasaki will at least rate plaques on the sides of public libraries or computer centers named after them. The pollyannas that were in positions to know what was going on, but instead (out of misplaced organizational loyalties/insufficient intellectual maturity to realize that tomorrow won't always be like today/unwillingness to face the unpleasant implications that logic inescapably yields when objectively applied to the facts about Y2K) chose to discourage people from preparing, will be treated differently. People will largely forget that these pollanna spokesmen ever existed, except as undifferentiated bad examples, and when they are remembered as individuals, these remembrances will be accompanied by a spitting sound and a look of abject revulsion, as one would remember someone from down the street who used to sexually molest toddlers, except not quite as favorably. The most notorious of public pollys can expect to have their children or grandchildren change their last names to remove any connection to them. What a legacy being a public pollyanna will have, huh?

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 22, 1999.

MinnesotaSmith,

Don't you find it kind of ironic that, in order for them to be right, the very institutions that you say will be honoring them (libraries/computer centers) won't exist? According to Infomagic there won't be anyone left to honor anyone.

-- Bob Brock (bbrock@i-america.net), May 22, 1999.

Bob, I say quite clearly in the Introduction on my website that I think Infomagic is brilliant, but overly pessimistic. Besides, even if the population of the planet were to drop by over 2/3, we would still one day have libraries (again). What we would not have any significant numbers of would be people saying that Y2K was no big deal; the numbers of those saying that (at least among people who can read & write and have made at least one phone call during their lifetime) would IMHO approximate the current membership of the Flat Earth Society. Those people who are pollyannas now will be viewed in the future as would Galileo's prosecutors if they had lived for 300+ more years: dishonest to the core if they DID understand, but publicly dissembled, and totally out of the loop if they genuinely did NOT "get it".

website: www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), May 22, 1999.

dbdgr ethre

-- amir_gi (amir_xx12@yahoo.com), December 03, 2003.