Subject:	Guenier: One Third Of Britain's TOP Firms Will Go BANKRUPT Over Y2k
Date:	1999/07/06
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

Major British Firms Risk Y2K Demise - Robin Guenier LONDON, ENGLAND, 1999 JUL 6 (NB) By Steve Gold, Newsbytes.   Almost one third of Britain's top 1,000 companies are failing in their battle with the Y2K issue on their information technology (IT) systems. As a result, many of them will face the ultimate punishment, bankruptcy, Robin Guenier, a leading Y2K expert, has announced   ===========================   Let's see...... A genuine risk of a very substanatial portion of the BIGGEST companies in England, belly up.   Dear readers, please take the following Y2k personality profile test.....   Guinier's statements could best be interpretted that Briatain is......   1. Doing well 2. Working hard 3. Committing resources 4. Taking it seriously 5 All of the above 6 Failing miserably   If you are a Pollyanna you have selected for # 5.  From any possible angle, you are  what can best be described as an "asshole". There is no other appropriate physcological term. We have looked at them all. Deluded? Not comprehensive enough. Self-decieved? Also too narrow. Misguided? Don't make us laugh. Two of our associates herniated themselves at that suggestion. No, the only term that adequately encompasses the stupidity, naivte, stubborness,  self induced idiocy,  refusal to accept the truth, neglect of family, inadequate risk assessment and the incredible ability to make a sows ear out of a silk purse, is "asshole".   If you selected #6, then you are best termed a 'realist'.  Someone suggested 'pessimist' but too many of our associates pointed out that optimism or pessimism, rightly understood, should be an outlook based upon the reality of the facts and evidence, so that it does not matter, per se, whether the outlook is grim or rose colored IF it is based on the evidence. The characteristics of a realist are: ability to form opinion contrary to popular opinion if it is based upon the evidence, ability to assess risk adequately, ability to review bad news honestly wihout rejecting it because the conclusions are not pleasant and not curiously, the valuation of the safety of the family above such things as job security, future prospects, country club memberships, status,  ski trips and daily computation of the accrued value of their 401K's.   There is no polite way to put it. Any way you slice it, pollyannas are unmitigated unrepentant 'Assholes'.   Mountains of evidence. Daily stories like the NERC travesty of collusion with the utilities in their 'complaince' statements, or should we say, fraudulent public relation attempts in complete contradistinction and contradiction of the facts.   Yet, the media continues to churn out the obligatory phrases like, "Things seem to be looking up".   Let's take one more very simle quiz. It si called, "No matter what happens, who will be worse off if they are WRONG?"   If the doomsayers are wrong. They will  still be alive with their families. They will suffer castigation, possible social sanctions etc.  But, they will be alive with their families.   If the Pollyannas are wrong, they will be DEAD. Seriously DEAD, with their families. No social castigation for the DEAD. No social sanctions for the DEAD. They will be DEAD with their families.   Now, which is worse; to prepare and be wrong, or to refuse to prepare and watch your children die because you had such a big brain that you could PROVE to your kids that they had nothing to fear?     If you are a pollyanna, you will still not prepare and you will still be an asshole.   If you love your family, you will prepare, and even though you may be wrong, you will still be alive and you think it is more important to protect  your kids than to knuckle under to the taunts of your neighbors.       http://asia.yahoo.com/headlines/070799/technology/931281120-132976.html   Paul Milne

-- a (a@a.a), July 07, 1999

Answers

Well, that's the situation in a nutshell. One of Milne's best rants, ever!

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 07, 1999.

Once again the Biblical quote of "The Truth Shall Set You Free" comes to mind. Even in this area, those CHOOSING not to believe the truth (its out there, as in the quote/article) will pay for their error.

-- Jon Johnson (narnia4@usa.net), July 07, 1999.

What's there to suggest that the doomers will live it "they" are right? They can attempt, but if the system goes as Milne suggests, the survivors will be a remnant of a remnant. And it's a safe bet no one on the East coast will be amoung the remnant. And that inlcudes Milne.

By the way, a remnant is 10% of the population, or 27 million. Why? Because the lifestyle Milne projects is circa 1850. Population in the US then was 23 million.

A remnant of a remnant is 10% of that, or 2.7 million. Why that figure?

First, the US agricutlural system supported 23 million in 1850 with a functioning commerce, a rail system, a refined low tech farming infrastructure and slave labor. In a devolution, there will be no functioning commerce and no rail system. The mechanism for low tech farming has been long abandoned and will take decades to restore in order to get back to the 1:8 ratio (one farmer feeds eight) of the 1850s.

Second, and of greater magnitude...what will become of the 250+ million that didn't make it through Milne? Remember Jonestown? I knew a reporter that was one of the first to witness the scene. Airborne disease spreads rapidly in this environment. Few east of the Mississippi River will be spared.

So Ponder this: 2.7 million out of 270 million. That's one in a hundred odds if the system fails Milne style. Better than no odds I suppose, but none to good. Better work on saving whatever part of the "system" you can.

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 07, 1999.

Ponder: Wow. Thanks. It's always a kick to see someone out-doom le Milne.

Hope you're both wrong, of course. But at any rate, I'm grateful to be childless.

-- a remnant (of@a.remnant), July 07, 1999.

Ponder, You may well be right, and perhaps preps won't save us. That's not even relevant because that is not under our own control. All we can do is what we can do, which is to try to prepare.That's our part, our obligation to ourselves.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

I wouldn't say that my postulation "out-dooms" Milne. Actually it's just an extension of Milne. I suspect Milne has run with these numbers before, but to post such would doom even his preparations into the land of Moot.

As for what we can do, in terms of preparing ourselves, well...with that approach it is out of our hands.

But ponder this:

The real cause of the sinking of the Titanic was not the iceberg it hit, but the fire in it's belly. For six days, dried coal stored in Bin 6 burned from the inside. All the crew could do was to keep the rest of the coal in the bin wet, fearing an explosion.

Did the passengers know this? I suspect since most of you did not know it until now, they didn't either. Kept secret for fear of panic in a confined area, the fire continued to burned. Contained, yes, but the fear of igniting an uncontrollable blaze made the ship's captain decide to increase knots per hour, in a effort to reach it destination sooner. Consequently, the Titanic outran it's headlights, so to speak.

So you see, the obvious solution often is not the correct one. What you do to prepare yourself and family may be lost if your community doesn't deal with the problem. Save as much of the "system" as you can.

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 07, 1999.

Ponder-

Where did you find that info re:

"The real cause of the sinking of the Titanic was not the iceberg it hit, but the fire in it's belly. For six days, dried coal stored in Bin 6 burned from the inside. All the crew could do was to keep the rest of the coal in the bin wet, fearing an explosion".

I've seen numerous documentaries on the causes of the sinking and have never heard of this. Interesting if true.

Thanks

-- CD (not@here.com), July 07, 1999.

Wowwww.

-- stickin' around this thread for a while (@vodka&.tonic_would_be_nice_thanks), July 07, 1999.

CD,

I had heard this story years ago and my eyebrows furrowed with doubt.

But ponder this: Sometimes you have to listen on the off-beats to hear the "Rest of the Story."

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 07, 1999.

As the story goes, a small fire started in boiler room 6 that smolded for weeks in the coal dust of the starboard bunker. This was apparently not an uncommon or particularly precarious situation, and speculation that the captain increased speed to make it to port because of this is not supported by fact. The accepted reason for the Titanic's rapid transit was to set a speed record for transatlantic navigation.

-- a (a@a.a), July 07, 1999.

"smouldered for weeks"? Sounds like the fire was well on its way before it left port.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

April 13 1912 10:30 am

Capt. Smith began his daily inspection of the ship. During his inspection of the engine room, Chief Engineer Bell reports the fire in boiler room 6 is finally extinguished, however the bulkhead part of the bunker shows signs of heat damage. Capt. Smith ordered oil to be rubbed on the damaged 1 inch think steel.

April 14 1912 11:40 am

Titantic hits iceberg.

Apparently, icebergs were very rare in that part of the ocean during that time of year.

http://users.hub.ofthe.net/~mlinneer/Titanic/voyage.htm

-- a (a@a.a), July 07, 1999.

That should be April 14 1912 11:40 PM...

-- a (a@a.a), July 07, 1999.

Ah, yes. Magnitude and perception come into play, don't they? "Apparently" and "Accepted."

But ponder this: "Unsupported by facts" also means "not conclusively disproven."

Truth is like a single line. Viewed from one perseptive, that line is straight and pure and true. Yet, back away and look from another perspective and you will find that "line" is the edge of wooden board, with depth and sturdiness to it. The "line" in our first vision is still accepted and used as a standard of straightness, but when truth ultimately reveals itself over periods of time, it takes a different, fuller shape. Thusly, history and our understanding of things is not always as we readily perceive them.

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 07, 1999.

A personal note. I will be away for a few days, but hope to revisit this thread upon my return. Ponder on.

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 07, 1999.

But before I go...

Ponder this: If an oceanliner must keep coal damp in order to ward chances of a fire, would not a utility stockpiling coal have to do the same? And if so, what does that entail?

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 07, 1999.

If you ever visit a large coal-burning power plant, take a look at the activity on their coal pile. Bulldozers in constant motion, pushing the coal around. Part of the activity is to keep the pile levelaround the conveyor drop-point and part is to keep the spontaneously-combusted coal at the bottom of the pile smothered out by pushing more coal down the side of the pile.

I have a brother in-law who is a plant operator at a very large plant in North Carolina. Their coal pile makes a small mountain when at the ninety-day supply level. He says that on average they end-up using water on the fires about once a month but smothering takes care of the majority of the problem.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), July 07, 1999.

The Milne - North -

-- potent (potent308@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

Let's try that again... The Milne - North - Hamasaki updates are well appreciated by folks like "us", that is , those to whom it has been revealed in our hearts and minds that their is going to be a whole lot of shaking going on soon. I offer an insight for free. The polly's don't get it because it is not the Lords will for them to understand. They are blind. Most of us were finished with preps last year, with 1999 for attention to details and fine tuning. These polly's will likely go into super - sonic panic later this year. Hey, Remnant... fear God not Y2K . Fear God, not man. Seek Him.

-- potent (potent308@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

Scotty: Captain! There's a fire in the Engine Room!

Kirk: Maintain steady course.

Scotty: Captain! I think she's gonna blow!

Kirk: Full warp speed ahead, Sulu!

Spock(entering): Captain, I smell something burning.

Kirk: Uh, Bones overcooked the popcorn, Spock. No problem.

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), July 07, 1999.

Consider that the moral message sent out by the Titanic tragedy might be diswayed should certain evidence arise that it wasn't arrogance that sunk the ship.

It has been the overriding message that man's belief that he had built the ultimate ship, that he could not be defeated; that the ship was unsinkable to the point that all neccessary lifeboats were not needed, that speed for the sake of vanity was called for. This is the portrayed history of the Titanic. Man's arrogance. What is the popular venacular these days; Hubris kills?

Could it be that history was so recorded to preserve this event in such a way to make a statement of man's arrogance? Certainly if it where to come to light that the speed by which the ill-fated ship traveled was in an effort to reach port safely, while leaving below deck problems undetected by it's passengers; would that revelation not temper the moral statement that for years has permeated the Titanic story?

There is no way to know. Setting a new speed record could have been a cover. Stating the fire had been extinquished before it actually was is little different than NERC saying the utilities are ready before they really are. Truth is sometimes covered with dust, not easily recognized.

-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), July 07, 1999.

Your eyes can deceive you. Don't trust them. Let go your concious self. Act on instinct.

YODA Jedi Wisdom

(I just love that little green guy, consider this to be my advice to assholes)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 07, 1999.

In answer to ponder:

I have made over 8000 posts to usenet on this subject. I know that you have read only a SMALL fraction of them. I have repeatedly stated that preparing is in NO way a guarantee of survival. I have repeatedly stated that it gives you a better CHANCE of survival. For you to misstate what I have said, does not give you any more credence.

I do not repeat EVERYTHING I have written in every post. Don't make unwarrented assumptions about what I do or do not believe. next time, pose a question and I will answer

-- Paul Milne (fedinfo@halifax.com), July 08, 1999.

The Y2K 100 Scarcity List (Items to Disappear First in the Panic of 1999)

Send SASE to:

Joseph Almond 2341 So. Hilltop Dr. Muskegon, MI 49441

'nuff said.

-- Joseph Almond (sa2000@webtv.net), July 09, 1999.

?????

-- (?@?.?), July 09, 1999.

Unwarranted Assumptions, Mr. Milne?....Really.

Well, ponder this:

Since you don't know who I am, you can't "know" what I've read and what I haven't, now can you?

This ain't fight picking, since I know you've long crossed Emmitsburg Road and your hat is to the heel. But let's not presume things. It doesn't help your credibility.

-- Ponder (this@night.com), July 15, 1999.