A few weeks ago I was talking with a friend I hadn't seen in a while about y2k. I wanted to let her know about it, since I had only just "GI" myself. She had said that she had been worried about it at one point, but hadn't given it (y2k) a thought in the last 6 or plus months. She said after she listened to a tape by Steve Hewitt she was greatly re-assured that things would be okay. Although she said other friends are preparing and have given her an invitation for her and her family to join them if there would be problems. I haven't heard the tape yet-- but she's planning on loaning it to me soon (it's loaned out elsewhere). I did go out to Steve Hewitt's website (Christian Computing Magazine) and while I looked at a few articles (including this one at http://www.gospelcom.net/ccmag/articles/edit499.html), I had a difficult time finding anything to support his views regarding y2k.

I guess that is central to the whole y2k issue-- we won't know until it happens. Every prediction is only a prediction. Perhaps I am a "doomer" at heart. No-- maybe not so much a doomer as a "Murphy's Law Enforcement Specialist". But perhaps that is why _I_ can find so little that would support this individual's viewpoint.

I would appreciate if anyone has heard Mr. Hewitt's tape/s about y2k-- or if they have read his y2k articles-- would they please comment on their assessment of the content? Thanks.

-- murphy (none@right.now), August 13, 1999

Answers

I read some of Hewitt's articles on Y2K earlier this year. I came away very unimpressed with his logic or support for his opinion. But then again, I'm just a tinfoil hat wearing doomer, according to Y2K Prozac.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.

I have not heard of Steve Hewitt's tape, but a book I wrote called "Y2K -- Apocalypse or Opportunity" (http://www.kellner2000.com) contains much of the same thinking as Mr. Hewitt. And, unlike some others writing on the subject, I am not selling gold, grain or ammo.

I believe the BEST approach to Y2K is "sanctified common sense," and unlike Mr. "Murphy" here, I'm willing to attach my real name and real e-mail address to these views. Please visit http://www.kellner2000.com and let me know what you think!

-- Mark A. Kellner (mark@kellner2000.com), August 13, 1999.

Hewitt used to post here occasionally.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 13, 1999.

Thread from about three months ago: Steve Hewitt: "The Challenge Ahead"

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 13, 1999.

And in that thread, I said everything I want to say about Mr. Hewitt's actions re Y2K.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 13, 1999.

I still hang around. I occasionally like to read the threads, but find that discussions accomplish little here. Too much mud slinging and trolls for much of what goes on here to be of much use.

I have two videos, both were created as a result of my speaking across the nation on Y2K. Everywhere I went, people taped my presentation, either audio or video. For those that did not have the ability, we had a crew come in and do so. We have not made too much of a big deal over the video. The first video, release 1, was taped when I spoke in Loveland CO, in January of this year. Since information constantly changes, we produced release 2 in March with updated information. We do not plan to produce another video on the subject, and are not planning to run any articles in the magazine on Y2K anymore (although if there is still a need, we might before the year is out).

I am working on a book that will hopefully come out January 2000, titled "Stop Trying to Scare Us!" It uses the Y2K story as the extreme example, but the book basically shows how there has been a trend in Christianity to move from one potential disaster to another in order to alarm the church and build up the finances of some ministry. Now that Y2K proved you could not only sell books and videos, but thousands of other items as well, then we can expect a constant series of such nonsense in the future as the new century begins.

No offense intended. If you believe Y2K is going to be dangerous, I don't want to try to persuade you from preparing. I however, believe it has been used to create fear and hype, in order to make some people feel important, sell a lot of books and videos, and a whole lot of other Y2K junk items. The great tragedy is that many in Christian media have discovered that Y2K not only sold a lot of copies of papers, mags, etc., but it brought in a lot of advertisement support for products that were never of any interest to the "Christian market". The great temptation for many is to fall right into some "great expectation" (have you already noted this phrase being used? I have!) of something bad around the corner. You MUST prepare...

Oh well, I will probably regret posting here, but since I was the subject, thought I would take another shot at my two cents worth.

Again, I DO NOT have anything against anyone that thinks Y2K will be bad. I DO NOT have anything against anyone that wishes to prepare. The ones I am after are those that have lied, misled, falsified, and spread urban legends and hype in order to scare others. And of course they were selling books, Y2K junk or food (or worked for a ministry or publication that sold the ads).

Have fun...

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), August 13, 1999.

Mr. Kellner wrote in part--

"I believe the BEST approach to Y2K is "sanctified common sense," and unlike Mr. "Murphy" here, I'm willing to attach my real name and real e-mail address to these views. Please visit http://www.kellner2000.com and let me know what you think!"

First, it would be Ms. Murphy. I have posted here at times under a different 'assumed name' but with a working e-mail. I do not always choose to include a real e-mail as I posted a public question and would prefer public response. I rarely, if ever, attach my real name to public forums such as these. Add paranoid about privacy to the list. There are a great deal of people who post here anonymously for a variety of reasons.

I hope that it was clear that the main focus of my post was in asking for feedback and not 'promoting my views'. The views that I mention were merely included to give a sense of 'where I'm coming from.' That my somewhat cynical attitude coupled with senate testimonies and on- line news articles may be filtering out those facts I so dearly would like to have seen supporting the outlook of Mr. Hewitt as written in the articles on his website. My "called-into-question views" are certainly not meant to be espoused by others, and so I did not feel they required the credibility of a real name and e-mail address.

I am not selling gold, grain, or ammo, either. Or books.

I may go out to look at your site, but given the tone of your response to my decision not to provide a real name, well, I kind of doubt it. If you don't have a clue as to why someone here would choose to post anon., then I don't see how you could even begin to grasp the complexity of y2k.

-- murphy (none@right.now), August 13, 1999.

murphy,

Don't waste your time going to Kellner's website; it's basically just an advertisement for his book.

Regarding Mr. Hewitt's post above, it's delicious irony to see a man righteously indignant about people making money off of Y2K books and videos who himself is promoting his forthcoming Y2K book and videos.

What was it Yeshua said about the Pharisees?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.

Thanks to those who have responded seriously to my question.

And thank you, too, Steve, for posting here. I hope that you are wrong when you say you will probably regret posting here.

I do understand your concerns regarding 'scare mongering' and resultant profiteering. But surely you must agree that this isn't recent trend-- whether in Christianity or humanity in general. And not always were the scare mongerers in it for profit. And not always were the scare mongerers wrong.

Perhaps when I get a chance to listen to your tape, I will gain a better understanding of why you believe that y2k is not going to be a problem. Or if you'd care to cite those reasons here, that would be fine, too. As I said earlier, I just couldn't get a good handle on the basis for your views about y2k. Granted, we all are responsible for drawing our own conclusions, and sometimes we hold to opinions that are rooted at a deeper level than we are even able to explain. But if you are able to explain, I would appreciate it.

I do hope that you are correct that y2k turns out to be just a tactic used to sell a lot of books and products. (You can't believe how much I hope that!) I'll leave it there.

-- murphy (none@right.now), August 13, 1999.

Murphy,

Did I mention my book? Just kidding! ha-ha

There is an under current in the christian community to promote Y2K similarly to what Steve has suggested. There is also a strong current in the churches to resist any message which would upset the congregation (this affects contributions as Focus on the Family found out the hard way recently). Assemblies of God has come out with a fairly strong statement advising their folks not to 'participate in..' and gives a list of what you or I might call normal preps. It seems to me that Steve is part of that second current.

In my experience the same basics which affect people's attitude about Y2K stuff transcends religious conviction. Your friend probably was looking for reassuances and found them in figures which she finds to give her a sense of confidence. Will she listean to you after having been reassured? Maybe. But often once people have the word from their leadership (pastor/priest/rabbi) they are pretty set because then they are bound into a trust relationship which is part of their faith. So to call anything into question somehow gets translated into an attack on faith.

I know you care about her but you will have to let her make her own mind up and suffer the consequences. You can offer help but can't force it since this will only affect the relationship.

-- ..- (dit@dot.dash), August 13, 1999.

Several months ago, the Head Deacon of my dad's church got discussing Y2K with my dad...he had read a book - Hal Lindsay's I think - and was concerned. My dad referred him to me, and we talked about it. I gave him lots of info, and he decided the church congregation should be informed. Although attendence at the meetings was realitively low for this church (about 20 showed up regularly) we had a pretty good group going and lots of helpful info and planning was being exchanged among us all. We were meeting every other Monday evening.

One evening, dad and I were unable to attend the meeting and dad called this Deacon to tell him. He told dad that another church in town had sent out an invitation to all churches in town to come to a meeting on that very night...so no problem. Our group went over to this other church to listen to none other than Mr. Steve Hewitt. We had one meeting after that. All the sudden, everybody's attitude had gone 180, and Y2K was a hoax...perped by a bunch of money-grubbing fearmongers spreading ficticious rumor supported by old information.

We never had another meeting after that. The people have gone back to sleep. Many of them were older folks. I wonder if Mr. Hewitt will return to Cheyenne, Wyoming to take care of these people...to feed and shelter them when the temperatures here drop well below zero? I wonder how much money Mr. Hewitt made on his speaking tour around the country, debunking Y2K? How many magazine subscriptions were sold? How many tapes? But don't listen to those money-grubbers out to rip you off guys...it's a hoax!

He now shows up at TB2000 and tells everyone here that he has nothing against people preparing. Mr. Hewitt, you are talking out both sides of your mouth. As editor of Christian Computing Magazine perhaps you, sir, would be wise to "let your yea be yea, and let your nay be nay."

Don Wegner - Official Doomer of Southeast Wyoming

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), August 13, 1999.

Im shure glad a read this posting. It brings to mind the many little sit downs I have had with folks trying to explian technically why there is a serious Y2K problem. There will always be somthing mentioned about either UFOs or Norstradamis (spelling) or the biblical end of the world... I at that point politelly jump down there throat and go wright to the technical acspects agian on Y2K. It seems that when you start to make sence on why things have to fail, folks start looking for DENIAL..The preacher, or the profitier that that sells Y2K only supplys fuel for the polys. If this is a 10 on the scale of end results, polys will be in far worst shape then the poor sap that didnt know about Y2K...Good Luck

-- Les (yoyo@tolate.com), August 13, 1999.

OK, I will try to make one more point. There is nothing wrong with selling books, videos, etc. Hey, I sell subscriptions to our magazine, Christian Computing, and have done so for over a decade.

However, IF you seek to sell something by using fear, and you use tactics that I believe are unethical, then I believe there is a difference. I think we have a problem when a person comes out with a book and a business and marketing plan to boot, and then follows it up with side products. Create a threat to my life, and then seek to sell me the solution? Come on. Write a book that creates a fear and a market (using speculation instead of fact. And of course, throw in the "fear of the unknown") and then the writer comes up with products to meet that market. This is one of my biggest complaints with what Michael Hyatt is doing.

There are two additional things I have seen happen in the Christian community. First of all, just about every Christian media show on TV and radio had a Y2K alarmist as a guest in the late 1998 or early 1999. They through support for the alarmist view and stressed the importance of the message of the author of the book or video. Of course, IF you made a donation (about twice what the book would normally sell for) you would get the book in appreciation, and YOU NEEDED this book! Therefore, support for the alarmist viewpoint helped bring in money to support whatever ministry jumped on this band wagon. Again, this is done all the time, but I think it is unethical to do it using fear. It is especially wrong if the fear is supported by speculation instead of fact. There WAS no 104 year old lady ordered by the government to report for school, tons of corned beef were NOT ordered destroyed due to Y2K, there WAS no embedded chip in a smoke stack that caused a power plant (or shoe factory, or whatever version of the story YOU heard) to shut down. There are no chips in the bottom of oil wells that is going to cause Y2K problems (see API public report, links are everywhere, even on Hyatt's site). There IS no DOD report about 4 missiles being isolated and two of them firing as a result of a Y2K simulation test. There IS no report. And if you want me to print the list of times and places that doomers (especially those SELLING the food) stated that you needed to hurry because supplies were limited, I can do it. However, if YOU want to order a years worth of food, you can get tons of it delivered to your door within two weeks and THIS IS AUGUST 1999. We have been lied too enough!

Now, there are enough reports out there to show that Y2K is causing us a problem. We can all disagree on the level. We can all disagree on when and what Y2K might do to our society. We can all disagree on the level of preparations. We can argue about the number of companies that are "Y2K ready verses those that are Y2K compliant. Personally none of this is important to me. Being Y2K Ready does not mean that you will NOT have crashes. I expect everyone will (almost every one HAS already). Yet, I don't think it will cause any disruptions that we can't handle. Personally, I have moved on from all of that, which is why I normally don't post here anymore, nor write about Y2K in the last couple of issues of CCMag.

My purpose is to simply show how SOME DID use Y2K to accomplish their own personal goals. Some wanted to incite fear, in order to bring the church back to repentance and an old testament type of law (can anyone say Gary North?). Others wanted to sell books, gain importance, increase contributions, sell ads in publications, and make a name for themselves. This does not mean that I disagree with everyone out there that believes Y2K will have some sort of impact that might affect us. I don't believe it will personally, but if they wish to, that is fine. If people wish to prepare, fine. But DON'T preach to me, and don't seek to make a business out of telling others to prepare, and then whip out your price sheet and seek to sell them the illusive Y2K supplies that are soon to be out of stock.

I have met people that have been scared to death. And when I looked at what was used to scare them, there were NO facts, just speculation, urban legends and mis-information.

The facts, in my opinion, is this. Technology is ALWAYS crashing. It is ALWAYS buggy. Y2K is a major pain for those dealing with computers. And it is my belief that Y2K problems and crashes are spread over time enough, that we will probably never see the affects any more than we are seeing them right now. Gartner says that between July 1, 1999 and Dec 20, 1999, 25% of Y2K will happen. No one seem to want to state how much of it has already happened before July 1, 1999, but I believe about 50% of it has. I do not expect any more disruptions in January 2000, than I saw in January 1999 (when 10% of all businesses HAD Y2K crashes.) In fact, I believe we are seeing more crashes and disruptions NOW because most of them are being caused by new upgrades. Anyone else have an ATM problem this last week due to MCI upgrades? Hey, welcome to the Y2K disaster. But, did anyone need to shoot anyone else? Did any hoards of people appear on the horizon looking to steal your food (I also liked some of the Y2K fiction writing that has been going on in this forum, hehehe).

These glitches, caused by new upgrades, will greatly diminish next year, so we will only be affected by actual Y2K glitches. Which, while annoying, have not, and will not shut down our society.

People had tried to say that certain days in 1999 would tell us how bad Y2K was going to be, and then when very little happened, they tried to say it wasn't important because fiscal year's were not affected by Y2K. They are wrong, because fiscal years ARE affected. I have a personal report from Oklahoma. While state workers did get paid on July 1, 1999 when they rolled over to the fiscal year of 2000, bonus checks did not go through as a result of a Y2K glitch. However, even with it being a holiday weekend (4th of July and all) bonus checks were paid out on the 6th. Where is the civil unrest that North and others predicted when city employees were not going to get their pay checks? I talked with my contact in the state of Florida's accounting office and they TRIED to do a lot of "look ahead" functions after July 1, and couldn't get anything to crash!

Personally, I am sickened by the way attempts were made to bring Y2K into the common household. We were told that "experts" believed consumer electronic products would be affected, yet, even when Newsweek reported this in 1997, after challenged by CNET, not a single expert could be found. And I still keep the quote from Yourdon on my wall that states ""Some percentage of the onboard automobile microcomputers could conceivably be date-sensitive, and some percentage of the 'sensitive' computers might carry out 'mission-critical' functions (e.g., fuel mixture) for which a sudden failure could have life-threatening consequences." ("Transportation, What Can Happen! What Probably Will Happen!" Ed and Jennifer Yourdon in Harris Farmer's Almanac Presents Y2K Disaster 2000, p. 57) Come on! This is the famous Yourdon, THE technical Y2K expert that so many have followed! Go out and turn on your car lights. Wait until your battery is run down. Now, every computer that retains data has been reset (car radio pre-sets, clock, etc.) Jump start your car and drive home. Any secret embedded chips causing your car to be "life-threatening"? Maybe if you are trying to set the clock while driving down the highway

This is my crusade. This is what inflames me. Prepare if you like. Just stop supporting those that have purposely put negative spins on speculation and presented it as fact.

OK, NOW I AM in trouble. Write a book, sell your story, I won't have any problems. But sell fear, and then sell the hyped up solution, and I reserve the write to expose you for what you are.

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), August 13, 1999.

Here's a question for you: do you think before you write?

Gartner says that between July 1, 1999 and Dec 20, 1999, 25% of Y2K will happen.

What does that mean?

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 13, 1999.

Don Wegner,

In answer to your question, if my memory serves me correctly, I was paid $150 to drive up from Loveland (where I was asked to tape for the PAX Y2K special, but since they wanted ONLY fear inducing material, they didn't use any of mine). I had hotel expenses which I took care of, and I had to drive all the way into KC, because the next day I was speaking at a church there.

I remember being in the church you mentioned very well. There was an elderly lady there that had been presuaded to take out all of her money and purchase gold, which she was hiding in her closet (she showed the pastor when he came over for Sunday dinner). Also, in your area, someone was distributing a card to all of the churches. I kept it for a long time, but do not have it presently. It stated that because of the desire to minister to "Christians and churches" you were encouraged to send off for a free Y2K evaluation disk. However, IF the disk found trouble on your computer, for only $350 (not the exact price, but in the 300's) they would send you a Y2K FIX disk. At the bottom of the card, it stated that there were openings for those pastors that wanted to join this great opportunity for marketing. THIS is the kind of stuff that makes me sick. Do you KNOW what Parsons and others charge for their software Y2K fix for PC's? This kind of marketing being done in your state (the ONLY place I found this scam) is exactly what I talk about. In fact, I used THIS as an example that night.

In THAT presentation, and in every presentation I have done this year, I suggest that you follow the suggested preparations that the Red Cross the Gartner suggest. I do NOT spend time ridiculing those that seek to prepare more, but instead point out the mis-information and hype being used by others. If this caused people to calm down and make rational decisions, then I am delighted. IF it stopped you and others scaring others, then I am thrilled.

I keep thinking that I am making my point, but obviously I am not. When I first started posting here around the first of the year, someone, maybe BigDog or someone, made a good point. They stated that I was wrong for trying to judge them for preparing. I agreed. If YOU wish to prepare, fine. But, I do not think there is the need beyond basic preparations for any unexpected disruptions, and have stated for almost a year now that you should prepare as suggested by the Red Cross. Now if you want to believe it will be worse, and wish to prepare more, go ahead. But my message is that I DON'T think there is the need. That is my message. And, churches across the nation wish to hear that message.

Back when I came to your part of the country, I had stated that I would go anywhere and not charge anything. I would cover my own travel, and only asked for love offerings to help defray the costs. For the first quarter of 1999, my staff figured that at times I was loosing $200 to $250 a day. So get off my back...

I obviously had to give up going for free, and NOW do require that my plane and hotel fair is covered. However I still DO NOT, nor have I EVER required a set amount of pay to speak on Y2K. I am now only speaking about once a week, and am booked far into November at this point.

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccamg.com), August 13, 1999.

Lane Core Jr.

What disruptions are you expecting to happen as a result of Y2K? What the Gartner group is saying is that of ALL of the disruptions we will see, 25% will be happening between July 1, and Dec 20, 1999. You see, anyone that told you that Y2K was about disruptions on Jan 1, 2000 either was misinformed, or purposely misled you. We HAVE been having Y2K crashes since 1995. In January of this year, when I spoke in Loveland, the Y2K project manager for HP stood up and stated that they had already had over 200 Y2K crashes at HP. All were handled quickly, and few clients felt anything. Susan (I think her name was Bentley) from American Airlines, stated to Kirby Anderson in October 1998, (during a radio interview) that American Airlines had had 63 different times Y2K had crashed their systems.

I know of a company in Lenexa KS that keeps a client database for a national company. In January of 1999, after entering over 30,000 customers, when they rolled over to February, the computer deleted the 30,000 entered in January. The computer looked ahead one year for the renewal notices, didn't know what to do with Jan 00, and therefore deleted the entries. They had the problem fixed within 2 hours, but it took about 2 weeks for their data entry people to re-enter the 30,000 clients. However, no customer ever knew about it.

You see, Y2K is happening NOW.

Boy, once you start responding, you can spend the day here, huh. Come on, where are the personal attacks? Don't disappoint me... (grin)

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), August 13, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt,

>>>Now if you want to believe it will be worse, and wish to prepare more, go ahead. But my message is that I DON'T think there is the need. That is my message. And, churches across the nation wish to hear that message.

Well, now...that seems to be the crux of the matter right there. You are tickling their ears by telling them what they want to hear. Despite the obvious facts, well documented from original sources. I do not need to go to Gary North's website or read some flame-thrower of a preacher's book to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Y2K is a very serious problem.

Scott Johnson just posted a link to an interview he just did with Koskinen...check it out. While the official White House PR Flack remains loyal to his assigned duties, about halfway through the interview he does pinpoint a problem that many seem to be overlooking. Despite whether or not the Fed.gov "makes it" or the banks "make it" or whoever "makes it" the fact remains that half of the country's SME's are doing NOTHING. This number has remained consistant since 1995. At least half the nation's COUNTIES are doing NOTHING. The rest of the world is way behind or doing NOTHING.

Cap Gemini just reported 75% of Fortune 500 companies have already experienced Y2K failures. You speak as if Y2K is not even a problem. In fact, if I recall, (one person who attended your meeting gave me one of your magazines) I believe you stated that it would be a non- event. The GAO recently reported that 43 vital software programs that run the various agencies programs are NOT DONE. These programs affect millions of Americans.

I understand exactly what you are saying, sir, with regard to the SCAMS that are out there. We were discussing these with the people and warning them to be careful about financial scams in particular. I was not "scaring" anyone. I do NOT believe the end of the world is upon us. I do NOT believe the division of labor will vaporize. I was only trying to educate people to the POTENTIAL magnitude of the problem, and to discuss some reasonable alternatives should this problem affect power systems, communications, supply lines, etc.

Your "crusade" has had an equal and opposite effect! Now, these people think there is absolutely NOTHING to worry about...everything will be juuuuuuust fine. Personally, I don't care what you get paid or how many books you or anyone else can sell. We will all answer to higher authority.

With or without a Y2K disaster, the lady who bought the gold probably just made the wisest decision of her lifetime. Yes, I am well aware of what Parson's and others charge for their fixes. I posted a series of articles on a local website explaining how people could do it themselves for free.

I really don't want to go tit-for-tat with you, Mr. Hewitt, but for every "bogus" story concerning Y2K you can dig up, I can produce 10 documented failures, as reported by the company or government agency involved. I can show you plenty of embedded system failures. The question of whether or not Y2K problems are for real or not was answered long ago...evidently you missed it. The only debate now centers on what will be the effect. Human nature remains consistant. The effect is highly predictable. Preparing for 3 months is NOT unreasonable at all.

The forum readers have much info at their disposal, and I will end this conversation by stating for the record that I believe you have done a great disservice to your fellow man. In your zeal to expose the hucksters, you have downplayed the crisis. I have no problem with your crusade against scams, but in so doing, you are lulling people to sleep. I would only ask that you re-consider not your message, but perhaps the delivery of said message.

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), August 13, 1999.

Don,

Sorry but YOU do not seem to get it. Everywhere I speak I share examples of the many Y2K crashes that we have had, and are having now. How does this make YOUR point. Y2K IS happening now. There is no reason to believe that we will see a sharp increase in crashing in January 2000. While I would suggest that we will see as many then as we did in July 1, 1999, or will see in October 1, 1999, I do not expect much more. This is NOT misinformation, but is my assesment of the facts. You can not provide me any differing facts to prove otherwise. The survey you quoted, stating that 75% of all Fortune 1000 companies have already HAD Y2K crashes also stated at around 22% (Don't ahve the exact fact in front of me, but it is in the 20's) say that they don't believe they will be Y2K ready, and are therefore expecting to have more crashes next year. WAIT A MINUTE, that would indicate that we are over the hump with Y2K! The larger percent of companies that have had, or are expecting to have Y2K crashes is PAST!!!! Get it??? I wouldn't be surprised if 75% of all companies have Y2K crashes next year. So what? I don't expect any more disruptions then we are having now. Do not equate those as not being Y2K Ready, and company failures, because Y2K has certainly crashed systems across the world, yet very few, IF ANY, companies have gone under. Or, very few vital services, if any, have been disrupted.

You say I have been preaching to tickle ears? Sure, that is why I have a book out there this year, right. Try to write a book and go on the Christian radio and TV circles with a title, "Not much is going to happen!" No one wants it. Write a book and use words like, Meltdown, TimeBomb, Coming Chaos, and you will get invitations from everywhere. We LOVE a good ghost story. Unfortunely, those that have created a 50 billion dollar industry selling fear, did not want to consider the fact that they have had a negative impact on over 250,000 Christian homes. I have stated manytimes in the past (so you can go do your own reading) examples of people who have spent far beyond their means to prepare for a problem that I simply don't think is going to disrupt their lives any.

Sorry Don, I don't buy it. I DO answer to a high authority, and am ready to be called before Him night and day. I have sought His will, and his leading, and know He has directed my ways!

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), August 13, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt -

Do I understand you to say that you are quite certain that Y2K will not significantly affect anyone at any location in the US, and that therefore there is no need for them to make any preparations beyond the usual "2-to-3 days" recommendation? You have travelled throughout the country and have, I assume, preached the same message. Am I right in inferring therefore that you do not believe that Y2K will differ in its effects depending on location?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 13, 1999.

Steve Hewitt wrote:

"I do not expect any more disruptions in January 2000, than I saw in January 1999..."

"Y2K IS happening now. There is no reason to believe that we will see a sharp increase in crashing in January 2000. While I would suggest that we will see as many then as we did in July 1, 1999, or will see in October 1, 1999, I do not expect much more. This is NOT misinformation, but is my assesment of the facts. You can not provide me any differing facts to prove otherwise."

Mr. Hewitt, there is a reason it's called the YEAR 2000 PROBLEM. Apparently you have not been able to figure that one out yet. In MY assessment of the facts, your statements above show that you are absolutely and totally clueless. Anyone who listens to you does so at their own risk.

"I DO answer to a high authority, and am ready to be called before Him night and day. I have sought His will, and his leading, and know He has directed my ways!"

Mr. Hewitt, I respectfully suggest you read Ezekiel 34.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt said:

".... those that have created a 50 billion dollar industry selling fear, did not want to consider the fact that they have had a negative impact on over 250,000 Christian homes."

This one sentence rather sums up Mr. Hewitt's arguments and the person who he really is....

"250,000" Christian homes have been negatively impacted by those "selling fear". Let's see -- if that's 4 people per home, that would be 1,000,000 people who are "negatively impacted". Where are the signs of this terrible plague that is affecting a million people? Where are the signs of injury? If there is sufficient "negative impact", a class-action lawsuit ought to be easy to bring and win.....

And a $50 billion industry "selling fear"? That works out to $200 each spent by every man, woman and child in this country (50B divided by 250M). The vast majority of Americans haven't spent a penny on any "fear" -- or any dehydrated food, or generators, or even canned tuna for storage. This figure is unsupportable in reality -- especially if it is those "250,000 Christian homes" that are supposed to have done all this wild spending and suffering...then, it would be $200,000 PER HOME!!! (50B divided by 250K).

The fact that these are blatant exaggerations without any basis in reality tells us about the man.

Mr. Hewitt also said: "I have stated manytimes in the past (so you can go do your own reading) examples of people who have spent far beyond their means to prepare for a problem that I simply don't think is going to disrupt their lives."

So, in this Mr. Hewitt shows us that he KNOWS what people's "means" are, and KNOWS when they "spend far beyond" their means -- he knows better than the people themselves. These are, presumably, adults about whom he is speaking -- but he knows better than fellow adults how and where their money should be spent.....

He KNOWS this, because it is for "a problem that I simply don't think is going to disrupt their lives."

Somehow, Mr. Hewitt has himself become a prophet -- what he "simply thinks" is much more important and significant than what other people think about their own lives.

In the olden days, believing yourself smarter and more responsible than other people used to be called "pride". In the olden days, "pride" was one of the seven deadly sins -- the ones that bought you a speedy ticket to the lake of fire.

Mr. Hewitt, apparently, has forgotten that pride blinds the man who entertains it -- and that it leads to downfall.

Oh well.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 13, 1999.

I believe Steve Hewitt is dead wrong on the facts. No doubt, he has caused many to slight preparation. But I must say, guys, precisely because Y2K IS uncertain, everyone is entitled to their own convictions.

Let's not infantilize people. I get upset when Hewitt does (viz the hundreds of thousands who have been "deceived" by those awful scamsters) but it is just as pernicious when Hewitt is accused of it ("keeping people from preparing"). Unless Hewitt is a hypocrite or has a mocking spirit (something I do not have personal knowledge of), the worst he has done is act on the basis of his own convictions.

Do I think Hewitt has had a measurable effect on reducing the Y2K readiness of individuals, churches and communities? No doubt. Do I regret that? Obviously. But have adults in America had ample opportunity to weigh Y2K evidence for themselves? Duh.

THEY are the ones who will answer for their decisions. Not Milne, North or Hewitt.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 13, 1999.

Big Dog wrote:

"Do I think Hewitt has had a measurable effect on reducing the Y2K readiness of individuals, churches and communities? No doubt. Do I regret that? Obviously. But have adults in America had ample opportunity to weigh Y2K evidence for themselves? Duh.

THEY are the ones who will answer for their decisions. Not Milne, North or Hewitt."

Regarding physical consequences, you are right. But I have to disagree with you, Big Dog, regarding spiritual consequences. Mr. Hewitt is using his perceived position as a "shepherd" to the Christian flock to lead them astray.

While the sheep ARE responsible for following this shepherd down the primrose path, Mr. Hewitt is also responsible for deceiving them with his "smooth words" (Isa. 30:10; Rom. 16:18). Unless G-d has spoken to him and told him to proclaim that Y2K will be no problem, he is assuming the responsibility for all those who follow his advice.

Should the effects of Y2K cause the needless death of even one Christian who wasn't prepared because they followed Mr. Hewitt's advice, he is guilty of their blood. That's not a position I would want to find myself in come Judgment Day.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.

Hi Big Dog:

I'm reminded of some years back when my hubby's grandmother was becoming increasingly senile. She saw little creatures in the room; she watched people zip off their feathers and pass through closed windows; she thought her hands tasted like chocolate.

We spent a lot of time "reorienting" her -- no, people don't have feathers. No, your hands are not made of chocolate. No, you can't remove all your own clothes and take a walk....

But, you know what? She never really believed us. She believed "the evidence of her senses". She SAW this stuff. She KNEW it was real. No silly arguments from us were going to stand in her way.

Sometimes, when dealing with people like Mr. Hewitt, I think that if I just say the *right* words, just say them in the *right* way, they will understand.

But, then I remember my husband's grandmother.....

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 13, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt,

Your post above citing the failures reported by various companies appeared on the forum while I was typing my last response...we "crossed in the mail" so to speak. I only brought up the failures because your previous posts sounded as though you didn't even believe that Y2K was a real problem, but rather a manufactured one. I stand corrected. There are many out there that, even at this late stage of the game, still believe that it is a manufactured hoax.

Now, you seem to have latched onto the Gartner info like the old Peanuts character Linus latched onto his security blanket. Who died and made Garner Group the king of Y2K? I am holding in my hand a report by a certain Lynn Edelson, principal at PriceWaterhouseCoopers operational and systems risk management group in L.A.. Not only does she flatly state that of 15 LARGE corporations she is working with, only 1 is going to make it, but she also predicts that the first shock to the global economy will come immediately after the new year, but the aftershock that follows will be even more devastating. "Problems will start to bubble up and by the second quarter there will be a big mess." Hmmmmmmm. Sounds like a little more than a weekend event to me! A $40 million Command & Control bunker for the Government sounds like a little more than a weekend event to me. Of course, I could be wrong.

The real problem here, sir, is the fact that what you state at your meetings as "your opinion" are taken as Gospel by the sheeple. They give credence to what you say, because you have all the right credentials. They don't realize that being an editor of a magazine does not an expert make. They don't realize that the Official White House Y2K Czar never even had a PC until he got this job. You are all going on what you hear and what you read, just like me. The guys in the trenches that are cranking code are telling a different story.

Over the hump? Get real, Mr. Hewitt! Half of the companies are doing NOTHING...remember? ADD IT UP. Add the ones that are doing nothing to the failures that are certain to happen even in the remediated systems! Do I have to draw you a picture? Add in the rest of the world! I do believe, sir, that you have overtaken the position of Polly in Chief! Someone really should notify the others!!!

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), August 13, 1999.

Don, thanks for the response. I do of course disagree, but at least you provide a decent discussion. One point to you, one that Drew would disagree with because he uses the same arguement but draws a little different result, is that I HAVE talked to the guys in the trenches. I have talked to the CEO's, the city managers, the individual programs. I have talked to the Y2K director for Kraft Foods, HP, and many others. I have received hundreds, if not near a thousand, personal testimonies from those in the trenches. And they are from Christians who are willing to give their name, and put their reps on the line. They are NOT part of some conspiracy or other such nonsense. This is just one of many reasons I hold to my position.

Anita and Nabi, do a little more Bible study. Maybe you will get there. If you are going to hold me to a prophets stance, what are you going to do to all of the Y2K prophets that have turned from the doom and gloom? Of course, if I name some, like Ron Blue and Dr. Falwell, you will start to defame each of THEIR characters. You see, what I state is opinion. I do the best I can with the facts I have received. Due to my position, I have had to step into the Y2K discussion. You have not heard what I am saying, yet you have determined that I am wrong, and have judged me and passed my sentence. The Bible speaks much about the words that are coming from people like you.

What I want to know is this. Will either of you contact me after the first of the year and repent? Middle of next year? End of the year (after all, Hyatt and Feldhahn are both saying now that one of the affects of Y2K will hit on Dec 31, 2000 since leap year will add an additional day, and ALL those computer programs count days, and will crash at the END of 2000...Keeping the doom and gloom of Y2K alive for over a WHOLE nuther year, if you can believe it!)

No, I have seen people like you before. They prepared for the "Jupiter Affect" that was supposed to cause earthquakes, etc. They prepared for the "Economic Earthquake". And when these also passed into the night, they never stepped up and admitted they were wrong, but simply moved on to something else to cry about...

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), August 14, 1999.

I can't believe I'm reading this...

I remember lambasting young Hewitt a ways back after I heard his strident know-nothing tone on a radio show - it's in the archives -

We have Don telling him the damage he's done and is doing yet the arrogant SOB is gonna party on down with the same spiel up to and including rollover...

Jesus H... I'd better be careful here, but I think you get my drift...

Hewitt and Poole, cut from the same cloth, at least Poole doesn't wend his way around the country banging those nails in...

I still can't believe Hewitts last comments...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 14, 1999.

Wow! Hewitt causes a lot of reaction. For what is is worth, I am a musician, not a computer expert, yet I was able to research things from enough perspectives to come to a conclusion that it will be worse than Mr. Hewitt thinks it will be, but since nothing like this has ever happened before, and even experts are divided, then it makes sense that people will have opinions all over the place, so we all are entitled to our opinions and are responsible for our own judgements.

As to Mr. Hewitt's objection to profiteering, it seems to me to be well taken. However, a profiteer by one measure is a supplier by another. If some one sells you long term food, and it turns out you don't need it, then it was all hype and you will feel deceived. On the other hand, if you need it, it was a worthwhile purchase.

Everything in this world costs something, there is no way around it. In fact, we depend on 'profiteers' to bring us all the things that a division of labor society provides. This is the problem, and the one area where I think Gary North is absolutely correct, that the very division of labor in the society is at risk. The difference between now and the Depression is that we are more dependent for actual life on a vastly much more complex and fragile division of labor.

It is not easy to be the watchman on the wall. One of the most unpopular politicians in England in the '30's was Winston Churchill. If you read contemporary accounts, he was reviled as a right-wing kook and warmonger for constantly telling the English what they desperately didn't want to hear, that Hitler was dangerous, and there would be another war. He persisted in his opinions and warnings to the point that he lost his seat in Parliament for a while. None of the other Conservative politicians felt comfortable being associated with him.

What I am saying is that those, like North, who are sticking their necks out on this thing may well be doing us a big favor. I think those of us who prepared will find it was indeed necessary, and I am hoping that the more desperate edges of our survival plans need never be invoked.

-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 14, 1999.

Well folks...it's been an interesting conversation - to be sure. A couple of parting thoughts...

Big Dog, In your response you wrote:

>>Let's not infantilize people. I get upset when Hewitt does (viz the hundreds of thousands who have been "deceived" by those awful scamsters) but it is just as pernicious when Hewitt is accused of it ("keeping people from preparing").

My story is quite verifiable, sir. I am not spreading hearsay. I was there.

As to whether or not the American public has had ample opportunity to weigh Y2K evidence for themselves - Where do most Americans get their information? Do you believe, really, that the public has received timely, accurate information concerning the matter? Last I knew only 11% of households have internet access. Most of them probably use it to visit girly sites. When someone comes along with the title of "Editor of Christian Computing Magazine" I think it's safe to say that people will assume him to be one who would know the answers, and one who could be trusted to present accurate facts. Maybe even more so than a political appointee!

Mr. Covington, You are correct - a profiteer by one measure is a supplier by another. If a mechanic tells you he hears a knock in your engine and you had better get it looked at, you can either accuse him of profiteering and take your chances, or you can let him fix it, or you can take it to someone else and let them fix it. The knock remains a fact. Now the question would be, if the mechanic was an athiest and you are a Christian, would his information concerning the knock be any less valid? Those who blast North do so mostly for theological reasons. His theology is wrong, therefore, his Y2K info is wrong too. I still visit North's website daily for the latest news links. I ignore his comments and click the link. The fact that I disagree with his theology has nothing to do with Y2K. The fact that I disagree with some of his asessments concerning the division of labor has nothing to do with the fact that he is providing a valuable resource to us all. I believe he is indeed doing us all a big favor.

And last but certainly not least: Ms Murphy, Gee, I wonder at this point if you will ever again ask a question on this forum!!! I stand by my original post. Look at Mr. Hewitt's figures and then at Anita's math lesson. Mr. Hewitt is just as guilty of spin as those he accuses. He claims that Christians would rather hear doom and gloom than happy-faced reporting. Nonsense! If that were true, and all Christians or even a majority of them were seriously preparing for Y2K, we would be in the midst of severe shortages at this very moment. The banking system would have already collapsed. This arguement isn't even logical, much less factual.

-- Don (dwegner@cheyenneweb.com), August 14, 1999.

I have dozens of quarrels with Hewitt. Comparing Y2K to the Jupiter Effect shows how unintelligent he is. I have no doubt he is influencing people, many people. Not as many as John Koskinen, but many. It's still a slightly free country, thankfully.

If I had heard Hewitt present, I might be apoplectic. That has been known to happen.

I was addressing one small but important aspect of this: the way that we infantilize citizens (now underway with relation to the second amendment, eventually the first amendment as well, cf the Internet in 2010). Ed, you're doing it too to some degree.

Do people, in fact, often act on the basis of junk like Hewitt's articles and presentations? Of course. But, providing Hewitt is not a hypocrite or a mocker (known to God, not me), he does not fall under biblical strictures. Mocking may be a close call with Hewitt. By contrast, Poole is known to be deceitful.

Our country has been infantilizing people since the Great Depression, at least. Put any tape by Hewitt next to a tape by Yourdon and let the listener decide for themselves. They are responsible for their own lives and their families.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 14, 1999.

Steve Hewitt wrote:

Anita and Nabi, do a little more Bible study. Maybe you will get there.

Mr. Hewitt, you certainly have condescension down to an art form. You would do well to heed Proverbs 16:18; "Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

If you are going to hold me to a prophets stance, what are you going to do to all of the Y2K prophets that have turned from the doom and gloom? Of course, if I name some, like Ron Blue and Dr. Falwell, you will start to defame each of THEIR characters.

Just like you, they are going to have to explain their actions to the Messiah before his judgment seat (Rom. 14:12; 2 Cor. 5:10). It's not my place to judge them, but Yeshua's (Rom. 14:10).

You see, what I state is opinion. I do the best I can with the facts I have received. Due to my position, I have had to step into the Y2K discussion. You have not heard what I am saying, yet you have determined that I am wrong, and have judged me and passed my sentence. The Bible speaks much about the words that are coming from people like you.

Mr. Hewitt, I have read what you're saying, and I consider it to be irresponsible and dangerous. It may be your opinion, but you are presenting it as fact. BTW, why don't you quote me some of the Scriptures the speak "about the words that are coming from people like" me? I'm interested to learn more about the Bible, since you feel I don't know it.

What I want to know is this. Will either of you contact me after the first of the year and repent? Middle of next year? End of the year...

Yes, I will, if Y2K is a BITR. By June 30, 2000, if we are still sailing along with no discernable effects from Y2K, you name the place and I'll publically apologize (in person or in writing). My email address is real, so you can contact me.

No, I have seen people like you before. They prepared for the "Jupiter Affect" that was supposed to cause earthquakes, etc. They prepared for the "Economic Earthquake". And when these also passed into the night, they never stepped up and admitted they were wrong, but simply moved on to something else to cry about...

Now who is JUDGING me, Mr. Hewitt? You are a hypocrite of the first order. May G-d have mercy on you, because I truly think you are acting from pride and ignorance. But regardless, you will have to appear before the judgment seat of Yeshua, that you may receive punishment or reward based on the things done in the body, whether good or bad. Persuading people not to prepare in the face of possible catastrophe is bad, IMHO.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 14, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt -

My apologies if I missed your reply to my question. I will ask it again:

Is it your contention that there is no need for anyone to make any preparations beyond the usual "2-to-3 days" recommendation, because Y2K will not have any major impacts anywhere in the US?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 14, 1999.

Nabi -- Why on earth WOULD you owe Hewitt an apology or repentance for anything you have said about Y2K? Is he planning to apologize to you next year? Even implying that anyone owes someone an apology for preparation or warning about Y2K is outrageous.

I have said I am glad to acknowledge I was "wrong" should Y2K turn out to be a BITR, but that is an entirely different matter, though even this is only slightly less ludicrous.

AS IF I somehow have to defend my OWN right to have an opinion, but Hewitt doesn't. Ridiculous.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 14, 1999.

Mac,

I'm sorry if I didn't get back specifically to you. I will do so now. I have been saying since the last part of 1998 that everyone should always be prepared for unexpected intruptions of service or supplies. These intruptions can be caused by weather or other natural disasters. Therefore, I agree with the Red Cross, which stated before Y2K was an issue, and now uses the same statement of preparations FOR Y2K, that everyone should always have 3 days to a weeks worth of supplies on hand.

I expect, in fact we have seen, that Y2K will cause little glitches in our society. Some of these, maybe half, this year, are being caused by Y2K tests or as a result of companies upgrading. I have continued to state EVERYTIME I speak that Y2K can cause some economic problems, although by itself, I don't think it will be anything major. I think if a person feels that it is going to be worse, then they should certainly feel free to prepare for a longer disruption. I don't think there is the need, and so in expressing my opinion, I go with the statement as stated above.

I HAVE met a few people that I really respect (their opinion and their ability to discern information) that are making preparations for a longer disruption of events (I can count the number on one hand). However, they are not making this decision based on the scare tatics that have been used by Hyatt, North, and others. They have done their research, and drew a much different opinion than I. So be it. I have no problem with that.

Does this answer your question. I have seen your previous posts, and if I remember correctly, your point here would be that I state this here, but in my speaking engagements across the nation, I take a tongue and cheek stand on preparations. Well, your opinion of that viewpoint may be correct. When I am speaking, I do concentrate on showing the opposite side of the fear and doomers that have made such an impact in the Christian community. I do take a jab or too at their previous predictions and logic that is so illogical. I do not hide the fact that I think Y2K has been overly hyped, and go so far as to state that their has been an attempt by many to create fear and panic, in order to sell products, books, and build a rep.

Sorry if you disagree. Sorry if you think my message causes people to stop preparations. If they take my advice, they will follow the recommendations of the Red Cross, which I believe will be more than sufficient.

-- Steve Hewitt (steve@ccmag.com), August 14, 1999.

Thanks very much for your reply.

Since preparation requires action (and thus an overcoming of inertia), your taking such an opposite stance in your public appearances will, by definition, drain energy from those who might be inclined to prepare. It seems reasonable to conclude that many, if not most, will be slowed or perhaps even stopped by your words.

Given this, it seems that the worst you foresee anywhere is "Red Cross level" problems, since that is the maximum level of preparation you even mention, and thus will be the maximum level reached by anyone who is in any way influenced by your message. The minimum is, of course, zero (those who will need assistance within hours of an emergency), or even "negative" preparations (those who will not only not prepare themselves, but will inhibit other's preparations, thus decreasing overall preparedness.)

It thus seems logical to conclude that no one will prepare in any real sense if they follow your advice. Preparation is action and requires energy. You do not encourage preparedness. You in fact make fun of it.

Am I misunderstanding something important in your message? Do you expect anyone to leave one of your talks and set about making any preparations (even Red Cross level) for potential Y2K problems? If so, why?

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 14, 1999.

Well I didn't mean to be absent so long from a thread that I started. When I logged off yesterday afternoon it was shortly after dit@dot.dash's reply (very funny about 'did I mention my book' by the way). I hadn't expected the large number of responses and replies, but I certainly do appreciate the depth and breadth of the contents within each. To Don-- who expressed concern as to whether or not I would ever post again to this forum; well I smiled when I read that. I may not post again as 'murphy', but my questions to this forum are by no means done with. Overall the tone of the responses mean a great deal. I find that the individual tones conveyed also make an impact on the message conveyed-- at least for me it does.

I realize I'm coming back in on this very late in the life of an average thread around this forum. I do have a few questions yet for Mr. Hewitt, regarding some of his responses. Actually, I have a lot of questions, but I'll refrain from posing too many. I'll just ask the ones I'd most like answered. The rest of this post is addressed to Mr. Hewitt:

who wrote: "There are no chips in the bottom of oil wells that is going to cause Y2K problems (see API public report, links are everywhere, even on Hyatt's site)." Well, I wasn't exactly sure what "API" was, but I just typed it into my browser and I ended up at Applied Precision, Inc., apparently makers of microchips or ??? I was not able to find any links about anything relating to embedded chips, but then I didn't go out to every page. I wasn't even sure this was the API you meant. Perhaps you ment Associate Press Intl.? I haven't had a chance to go out to Michael Hyatt's web site, either. I know that sometimes people do not include direct links because they feel it is better for individuals to do their own research. However, if you have one of those links that are, as you say, "everywhere," I would appreciate it if you could reference one of them here.

Having been at your website, I recall you mentioning that there are two different 'Joseph Projects.' One you were opposed to, and the other was borderline acceptable in your view. The 'borderline' Joseph Project (2000) was organized in part by a woman named Shaunti Feldhahn, who also wrote a book about y2k. I have read the book and it alternates fictional scenario chapters with factual information as to why the fictional chapter _may_ play out the way it does. I know from statements you made at your website that you don't agree with everything in the book. Let me also preface my next few sentences with my own disclaimer that I don't necessarily believe that just because something is in print makes it true. In your responses posted here, you mention several things and label them as being urban legends. A few of those examples were sited in Ms. Feldhahn's book. Unfortunately, I read it a few weeks ago and I have returned it to the library, so I am working from memory and not able to put forth the specific details I would like to. However, at the time of reading the book, it certainly seemed as though these instances were being reported from credible sources. Aside from just saying that these are urban legends, can you offer any sources that have shown these reports as untrue?

The conclusion that I have drawn at this point, based on what you have written here is that your biggest reason for believing that Y2K is a non-event is because some have chosen to portray it in a manner that promotes fear in their audience and a profit in their bankbook. While the latter may be true, it does not necessitate the _invalidation_ of the potential serious problems that may present themselves as a result of Y2K. If a doctor tells a patient that they will die without a certain treatment, well certainly that doctor could be viewed as a scaremongerer and a profiteer. But that does not mean that his diagnosis is invalid. In fact, it's quite possible that the patient may die _in spite of_ the treatment and massive outlaying of capital.

I admire your convictions as they relate to your mission as a 'victims' advocate' as it were. To protect us from those who would prey upon us, take advantage of us can be a thankless task. I also admire the sincerity of your belief regarding Y2K. I do believe that you are sincere when you say that you believe it does not warrant preparations beyond those suggested by the Red Cross (who will take over for providing for our food and shelter needs in cases where any disaster extends beyond what we have prepared for). However, I would caution that sincere beliefs can also be sincerely wrong. I could believe something, with my whole heart and soul and might-- yet believing does not make it so. I could put my faith in a chair by a table, that it will not collapse if I sit in it. No matter how sincerely I believe that, however, will not change the fact that this particular chair happens to be defective and will collapse under my weight. Despite my sincere belief this chair should be as utilitarian as any other I have encountered throughout my range of experience, my belief did not make it so. Just because one believes something, doesn't necessarily make it true. And, conversely, just because someone doesn't believe something, doesn't necessarily make it false.

Granted, this applies not just to your y2k views, but to my current beliefs about Y2K, as well. My views certainly have the potential to be sincerely wrong. I sincerely hope that they are.

-- murphy (none@right.now), August 14, 1999.

This is it in a nutshell.

Hewitt is preaching a bump in the road scenario to a captive audience.

That simple.

He WILL cost lives.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 14, 1999.

Murphy:

I have no intention of getting involved in this "pissing contest", but the API is the American Petroleum Institute. Their website can be located by clicking here

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 14, 1999.

Anita,

I'm sorry you, or anyone else here, feel that this is a 'pissing contest.' That was not my intention. That assessment, especially addressed to me, implies that my questions/comments/responses are somehow insincere. I assure you, they are not.

Thank you for the link. I will go and take a look. If I have swallowed some urban legends about Y2K problems, I would like to find the accurate information that discounts them.

In the meantime, I will be printing this thread out to give to my friend when she gives me a copy of Steve Hewitt's tape.

-- murphy (none@right.now), August 15, 1999.

Just for the record, I thought we should list Mr. Hewitt's qualifications to comment so extensively on the likely impact of the Y2K problem. The following bio is from his web site (www.gospelcom.net/ccmag/):

About Steve Hewitt

Steve Hewitt is Editor-in-Chief of Christian Computing Magazine.

He published the first issue of Christian Computing Magazine, in January 1989 with a distribution of 1000. Today the magazine is distributed to 40,000 subscribers in the United States and 50+ countries.

Steve Hewitt was born on February 5, 1955. During high school, he felt God's call to serve in ministry. While still attending a Christian university in southern Missouri, he began work in his first church, and it was while he was pastoring his first church that he purchased a small computer to help him in his ministry. Over ten years later, he was elected president of a special "user group" of pastors, joining together to better learn how to use the computer as a vital tool for ministry.

It didn't take the Lord long to lead Steve in the realization that there needed to be a publication designed to help Christians and churches become better aware of the many software products being developed just for them. In 1988 he began to lay the ground work for Christian Computing Magazine, and the first issue was published Jan 1989 with 1,000 distribution. While at first, many resisted his message of using computers as a tool to advance, expand and aid in ministry, slowly the message spread. Presently Christian Computing Magazine is distributed across the USA and 50+ countries.

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 15, 1999.

Well, well, well, Nabi:

So Mr. Hewitt isn't just an 'editor' for the magazine -- he OWNS the magazine.

He couldn't possibly have any interest in promoting a false point of view....to protect his own income, could he?

Keep those subscriptions coming in, folks! Ignore those evil doomsayers, selling fear, who are just in it for the money! -- But it's okay to listen to those, selling false hope, who are just in it for the money...

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), August 15, 1999.

Christian Computing Magazine is not a non-profit organization. As with any magazine, much of its revenue is generated by selling advertising. A quick trip to the homepage shows 6 or 7 banner ads for software application developers. This is clearly a conflict of interest---suggesting that churches spend money on Y2K preparations, while accepting advertising from companies that sell computers and software for church applications, would be poor business practice. When a mainstream magazine is supported by advertising revenue from Phillip Morris or R.J. Reynolds, we don't expect its publishers to provide insightful or unbiased articles about the hazards of smoking.

-- RUOK (RUOK@yesiam.com), August 15, 1999.

Mr. Hewitt, did it ever occur to you that perhaps God allowed people to find out about Y2k so that they would prepare? And that while Y2k in and of itself won't be that big of a deal, there is something else on the horizon that they will desperately need those supplies for?

I do not condone scams or the people who perpetrate them, but I do believe there will come a day when you regret some of the words you have spoken.

-- Maybe you should (talk@to.God), August 15, 1999.

"there is something else on the horizon that they will desperately need those supplies for?"

that's exactly what I meant when I said he WILL COST LIVES...

think about it... y2k or not... this maroon is preaching apathy and negativity - red croos my ass - 2-3 days is bullshit for ANY family

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 15, 1999.

Regarding Mr. Hewitt's post above, it's delicious irony to see a man righteously indignant about people making money off of Y2K books and videos who himself is promoting his forthcoming Y2K book and videos.

What was it Yeshua said about the Pharisees?

-- Nabi Davidson (nabi7@yahoo.com), August 13, 1999.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!! Thanks Nabi! You're a babe! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Yo Steve,

Have you read this? Perhaps you consider these guys to be fear mongers too. To tell you the truth Steve I don't give a damn why people prepare as long as they do prepare. Do you have such a stunted view of history that you imagine this is the first time organized religion has used scare tactics to soak its congregation for cash???

STEVE - WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG???!!!!! What if the CIA and the IEE are right? Do you really think that 3-2 days worth of food is going to save anyone? How dare you to presume to think for others.

So unscrupulous people are making money off of Y2k. I'm shocked, shocked. You know what? I hear there are crooked mechanics, plumbers and cops too. I hear there are grocers that cheat the scales and geeks that lie about progress on a project. Does that mean we should stop repairing our cars, unclogging our drains etc...?

The sheer arrogance is so depressing. You are making money off of scaring people about the dreaded "Fear mongers." You are selling magazines. I don't care what ratinalization you are using. I'm sure you think you're a good guy. Read the damn CIA report and then write about THAT in your zine.

05 March 1999

TEXT: CIA ASSESSES GLOBAL Y2K READINESS (Senate hearing focuses on international Y2K issues) (3670)

Washington -- All the world's nations will be affected by Y2K related failures to some extent, according to a review conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A CIA officer presented the findings to the U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem March 5.

Lawrence Gershwin with the CIA's National Intelligence Council reported that global connections in telecommunications, financial systems, air transportation, manufacturing and trade assure an international impact when many computer systems are expected to encounter problems reading dates at the opening of the year 2000. While Gershwin acknowledged some difficulty in making predictions about what's likely to happen, he said CIA research has identified those areas most likely to affect U.S. interests. They are: foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport. The CIA found the lowest level of Y2K preparedness in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and several Asian countries, including China. In Western Europe, the intelligence agency found that modification of computer systems to accommodate conversion to a new currency has taken precedence over Y2K problems.

In Russia and Ukraine, Gershwin testified that humanitarian consequences could result if Y2K failures lead to power outages in the midst of harsh winter weather.

Gershwin also said the CIA is watching carefully the vulnerability of Soviet designed nuclear power plants throughout the nations of the former USSR, Central and Eastern Europe. This review also finds the potential for Y2K problems in Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network.

Military systems are also a matter of concern, but Gershwin was clear to allay some fears. "We do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched, or nuclear weapons going off, because of computer problems arising from Y2K failures. And our assessment remains that we currently do not see a danger of unauthorized or inadvertent launch of ballistic missiles from any country due to Y2K problems."

Following is the text of Gershwin's testimony:

(begin text) LAWRENCE K. GERSHWIN, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE COUNCIL WRITTEN STATEMENT FOR THE SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE YEAR 2000 TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM

5 March 1999

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to discuss with you today the understanding that the Intelligence Community has about foreign efforts to deal with the Y2K problem. We continue to watch the problem closely, and I have our current assessment of where we see problems as most likely to occur. The Y2K situation continues to change, and our assessments will similarly evolve as more information becomes available, as countries become more aware of and deal with Y2K issues, and as incidents of Y2K failure increase.

As we have said before, Mr. Chairman, all countries will be affected -- to one degree or another -- by Y2K-related failures. Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, air transportation, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, and trade will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries. No country will be completely immune from failures. Fixing the Y2K problem has proven to be labor and time intensive, as well as expensive.

There remain significant information gaps that make it difficult for us to assess how serious the Y2K problem will be around the world. In many cases, foreign countries only recently have become aware of the problem and begun to examine their critical infrastructure systems for potential Y2K failures. In comparison, the United States has made a significant effort to identify and redress Y2K problems, and it was only after the process was well underway that it was possible to get a good appreciation of the extent of the problem and its implications. Many foreign countries, particularly those that are the furthest behind, have not made such an effort, so -- for our part -- we can identify their likely problem areas but cannot make confident judgments at this point about what is likely to happen. Those problem areas that we have detected that have the potential to affect US interests include, among others, foreign nuclear reactors and power grids, military early warning systems, trade, the oil and gas sectors, and worldwide shipping and air transport, all of which I will elaborate on.

The consequences of Y2K failures abroad will range from the relatively benign, to problems within systems across sectors that will have humanitarian implications, such as power loss in mid- winter. The coincidence of widespread Y2K-related failures in the winter of 1999-2000 in Russia and Ukraine, with continuing economic problems, food shortages, and already difficult conditions for the population could have major humanitarian consequences for these countries.

Foreign countries trail the United States in addressing Y2K problems by at least several months, and in many cases much longer. Y2K remediation is underfunded in most countries. We do see indications that countries are undertaking contingency planning for recovery from Y2K failures:

- Time and resource constraints will limit the ability of most countries to respond adequately by 2000.

-- Governments in many countries have begun to plan seriously for Y2K remediation only within the last year, some only in the last few months, and some continue to significantly underestimate the cost and time requirements for remediation and, importantly, testing. Because many countries are way behind, testing of fixes will come late, and unanticipated problems typically arise in this phase.

-- The largest institutions, particularly those in the financial sectors, are the most advanced in Y2K remediation. Small and medium- size entities trail in every sector worldwide.

-- Most countries have failed to address aggressively the issue of embedded processors. While recent understanding is that failures here will be less than previously estimated, it is nevertheless the case that failure to address this issue will still cause some highly dependent sectors with complex sensor and processing systems to have problems, centered right on the January 1 date.

-- The lowest level of Y2K preparedness is evident in Eastern Europe, Russia, Latin America, the Middle East, Africa, and several Asian countries, including China.

The World Bank recently noted that the Y2K problem within developing countries has been overlooked because many observers assume developing countries are less dependent on computers in everyday national life. They point out that the majority of developing countries, even the poorest, have computerized essential services such as power generation, telecommunications, food and fuel distribution, and the provision of medical care. The Bank says that a general failure of such systems could endanger the health, security, and economic well being of people in the developing world. We agree with this assessment.

Middle Eastern countries and firms have basic awareness of the Y2K problem and have made modest progress in remediation. The business sector, especially banking, seems best prepared in that region. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates believe that their banks will be ready. Most government, business, and military remediation efforts are however, in general, poorly coordinated.

In Africa, efforts in South Africa are the best organized. South Africa leads the continent in recognition of the Y2K challenge and in activities to address it. As in the Middle East, most other government and military remediation efforts throughout the continent are, in general, poorly coordinated.

We see problems in Latin America. An October 1998 Gartner Group study indicated that in many nations of Latin America, at least 50 percent of companies will experience at least one mission critical failure. Even if governments and firms in Latin America devote sufficient resources to the problem, they will be hard pressed to complete remediation within the next 10 months to avoid systems failures.

Although Western Europe is in relatively better shape than most other regions, European awareness of and concern about the Y2K problem is uneven, and the Europeans lag the United States in fixing their problems. European attention was focused on modifying computer systems for the European Monetary Union conversion, which was implemented successfully on 1 January, but this was done, in many cases, by postponing coming to grips with Y2K problems.

The Asian economic crisis has hampered the Y2K remediation efforts of most of the Asia-Pacific countries. The appeal to the World Bank and others this week from eighteen Asia-Pacific nations during the Manila Y2K summit, asking for funding for Y2K remediation, was not surprising. There is much to be done. After a slow start in addressing the Y2K problem, China has stepped up efforts over the past two months in an attempt to meet a March 31 deadline imposed by the Ministry of Information for detection of Y2K problems. In mid- February 99, Chinese officials conducted the first test of several key systems in the financial, telecommunications, and electric power sectors. The civil aviation sector reportedly is also preparing for a nationwide test. While the lines of authority for China's Y2K effort have been established, remediation efforts in critical sectors such as electric power, transportation, and telecommunications appear to be lagging. China's late start in addressing Y2K issues suggests Beijing will solve some, but not many of its Y2K problems in the limited time remaining, and will probably experience failures in key sectors. China's problems are exacerbated by the fact that, by some estimates, over 90% of the software used in China is pirated, including most of the software used in government offices and state owned enterprises. This could make it very difficult to approach software vendors for technical fixes and coincidentally, limits China's legal recourse should their software suffer Y2K-related problems.

Russia has exhibited a low level of Y2K awareness and remediation activity. While the Russians possess a talented pool of programmers, they seem to lack the time, organization, and funding to adequately confront the Y2K problem. The $3 billion estimate last month from Alexander Krupnov, Chairman of the Russian Central Telecommunications Commission, is six times the original estimate. Frankly, we do not know how they arrived at this number.

One issue we are watching in Russia relates to vulnerability of Soviet- designed nuclear plants in Central and Eastern Europe and Russia to Y2K- related problems. DOE analysts have done a systematic analysis of the safety of foreign reactors, and some of the former Soviet models are the worst. US nuclear reactor specialists know a great deal about the design and safety of these reactors, but they do not yet know what specific Y2K problems they may have. Documentation for plant equipment and software in use in Soviet-designed reactors is either poor or nonexistent. Many of the vendors who supplied this equipment or software have not been in business since the fall of the Soviet Union and are not available to help.

We envision two ways in which potential problems with Soviet-designed reactors could evolve. The first involves the operation of internal components or sensors crucial to the operation of the plant, being affected or degraded by Y2K problems. For example, a valve with a digital controller designed to automatically adjust the flow of cooling water could potentially malfunction because the digital controller does not recognize the year 00. The second involves problems arising from the loss of off-site power to the reactor due to Y2K problems in the power grid. This could lead to a series of Y2K problems possibly occurring simultaneously, presenting an even greater challenge to the reactor operators.

While loss of electric power would in itself normally result in reactor shutdown, that process could potentially be complicated if internal Y2K problems arise within the reactor complex itself. We have not yet identified any safety-related equipment with Y2K-related problems within Soviet-designed reactors; however, other, non-safety- related equipment used to operate the plant may have problems. For example, in some Soviet-style reactors (RBMK's-14 graphite moderated, water cooled reactors) a computer is used to control power production. Failure of this computer would cause activation of the safety systems, the control rods would automatically be inserted, and the reactor would begin to shut down. When external power is lost, diesel generators are used to supply power to cooling pumps to remove heat from the core. These diesels must have adequate fuel supplies on hand for at least a week in order to prevent fuel melt.

While some Soviet-designed reactors are less, vulnerable to problems from Y2K failures due to safety improvements incorporated into their designs, other reactors currently in use in Russia and other former Soviet states and allies, such as the remaining reactor at Chernobyl, are of more concern. While DOE has initiatives underway designed to assist the Russians in reducing the risk of Y2K-related reactor safety issues, the Russians have been slow to accept our help. DOE is sponsoring a study at Pacific Northwest Laboratories to identify the most likely Y2K failures in Soviet designed reactors from internal Y2K problems or from electric power grid problems -- and to assess the implications of potential failures.

Russia's Gazprom Natural Gas Pipeline network also is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50 percent of the total energy consumed by Russia, almost 15 percent of the total energy consumed by Eastern Europe, and 5 percent of that consumed by Western Europe. Based on the natural gas storage capacity and the drawdown capability at the storage sites, we believe that Western Europe can survive a Gazprom shutdown for over 30 days. This assumes that there are no Y2K problems associated with distribution of the gas from the storage areas. Of greater concern are Eastern Europe, Russia itself, and the other states of the former Soviet Union should Russia's ability to transport and export natural gas be interrupted in mid- winter. Russia will lose virtually all of its natural gas and the information that we have on the storage capacity and drawdown capability of Eastern Europe and other states of the former Soviet Union suggests that those countries could experience severe shortages should Gazprom shut down. Like all major pipeline operators, Gazprom has emergency contingency plans to assure continued gas delivery after a pipeline shutdown or explosion. While available options include manual equipment operation, use of stored gas, and switching to backup pipe segments, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur due to Y2K failures.

Potential problems include:

-- Soviet-era mainframes -- roughly equivalent to the IBM 360 and 370 series -- have been used in Gazprom's pipeline operations centers and are highly likely to contain Y2K vulnerabilities.

-- Gazprom uses supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems to monitor and control some pipeline operations. Nearly all SCADA systems purchased prior to the late 1990s contain some degree of Y2K vulnerability.

-- Satellite ground stations used to transfer data between gas producing regions to Gazprom's headquarters may have Y2K problems.

-- Several hundred unattended equipment stations along remote Siberian sections of Gazprom's pipelines may rely on vulnerable embedded processors. While most of these should work, they all need to be tested to ensure their reliability. These stations are used to relay communications and may be used to control pipeline valves. Many of them are accessible only by special convoys or helicopter, and under normal circumstances are only visited twice per year. Compressor stations -- over six hundred of which pump gas through the pipeline network -- also contain embedded processors that could be vulnerable. Military systems and their command and control are particularly information- technology dependent, and thus potentially vulnerable to disruption if Y2K problems are not adequately addressed. Foreign strategic missile systems, particularly in Russia and China, may experience Y2K-related problems. Missile-related concerns involve the vulnerability of environmental control systems within silos to Y2K disruption. Sensors and controllers need to be Y2K safe. Liquid- fueled missiles within silos must be monitored for fuel leaks. Optimum temperature and humidity levels must also be maintained within the silos. I want to be clear that while local problems are foreseeable, we do not see a problem in terms of Russian or Chinese missiles automatically being launched, or nuclear weapons going off, because of computer problems arising from Y2K failures. And, our assessment remains that we currently do not see a danger of unauthorized or inadvertent launch of ballistic missiles from any country due to Y2K problems. Based on our analysis, we think the Russians may have some Y2K problems in the early warning systems that they use to monitor foreign missile launches, and at their command centers. You may have seen Maj. General Dvorkin's statement at a Moscow press conference this week that the Y2K problem does threaten early warning and space control systems. Problems within these systems could lead to incorrect information being either transmitted, received, or displayed or to complete system outages. General Dvorkin stated that tests have revealed which hardware and software needs to be remediated or replaced and that final tests of the adjusted software will take place in October of this year. DOD has been working with the Russians for months on these problems. DOD has announced plans to establish a joint US-Russian Defense Y2K Coordination Center in Colorado Springs, Colorado, in order to share early attack warning information, thus preventing confusion should any Y2K-related false or ambiguous warnings occur. A DOD delegation visited Moscow last month to help the Russians get up to speed on potential Y2K-related nuclear early warning problems.

Regarding world trade and oil, some of our most important trading partners -- including China and Japan -- have been documented by, among others, the Gartner Group, as behind the US in fixing their Y2K problems. Significant oil exporters to the United States and the global market include a number of countries that are lagging in their Y2K remediation efforts. Oil production is largely in the hands of multinational corporations in the oil-producing countries, but this sector is highly intensive in the use of information technology and complex systems using embedded processors. Microprocessors and computer systems are utilized for oil and gas production, processing, and transportation. Computers and microprocessors are used to monitor, report, and store data on the status of equipment and facilities and to assist in performing or controlling operations. In more sophisticated infrastructures, operations of equipment and facilities may be highly automated to enable networks of facilities to be controlled remotely. This places that industry at risk of Y2K- related problems which could result in a slowdown of extraction, refining and delivery.

The oil sector is also highly dependent on ports, ocean shipping, and domestic infrastructures. Y2K specialists have noted that world ports and ocean shipping are among the sectors that have done the least to prepare for the Y2K problem.

Waterborne commerce carries not only oil but a significant amount of the world's goods of all types. It is difficult to predict at present the effect of Y2K on the shipping industry, however, many ships and transshipment points use higher level computer systems and equipment that contain embedded systems. Widespread failures in waterborne commerce carriers could also have significant impacts in the supply of food and commercial goods, resulting in possibly severe economic disruptions. Malfunction of navigational equipment either aboard or external to the ship may also occur, resulting in either collisions or groundings, potentially resulting in environmental problems. Aviation has been one of the pioneers in automation and computer systems which are used on board aircraft and in control towers at airports. If global air traffic (personnel, air freight, package, and mail delivery) is seriously curtailed in 2000, this could have a significant impact on global business activity, not just the travel industry. Problems within this sector include the existence of radar systems deemed "legacy systems" that run older software and thus may be vulnerable.

Y2K problems in the telecommunications networks could negatively impact a broad range of other sectors that rely on the networks not only for communications but also for monitoring and load management. Many countries have telecommunications equipment with components purchased elsewhere, a fact that complicates the identification and remediation of Y2K-related problems. Sectors that are heavily dependent on telecommunications include banking, defense, electric power, natural gas, water, transportation, and food distribution. In addition, a functioning telecom network is crucial in emergency situations.

Our global and domestic markets for financial securities, commodities, products, and services depend completely on the smooth functioning of the vast information technology (IT) infrastructure. The banking industry is particularly affected by the year 2000 problem because nearly every aspect of the business is dependent on computer systems for processing transactions and providing information. It is as yet unclear what effect non-remediated foreign banks will have on the international banking system when they attempt to interact with the rest of the world. The Y2K-related litigation issue continues to grow. Concerns about litigation have, in some cases, stifled the open exchange of information on Y2K-related issues. Many foreign officials and companies who are aware of Y2K problems are looking to the West, particularly the United States, for help and technical solutions. Foreign companies or governments may blame the United States and other foreign vendors for problems in equipment and thus seek legal redress for their failures.

In closing, let me note that today we are closely monitoring a broad range of countries and sectors worldwide in terms of their susceptibility to disruption by Y2K failures. We continue to gather information from all branches of the US Government, industry sources, a vast array of open sources (including hundreds of Web sites), and our own intelligence collection efforts so that we can accurately predict failures abroad and assess the implications. We are working very closely with the rest of the government, through the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, and will continue to share relevant information on the Y2K situation abroad. As our collection continues, and awareness of and reporting on Y2K problems abroad increases, our estimates of the type and extent of failures we are likely to see around the world will become more precise. (end text)

-- R (puking with disgust @ arrogant hypocrits (riversoma@aol.com), August 16, 1999.