Navy leak stinks of Der Slickmeister.................

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Remember old Zippermans impeachment trial? Leak and debunk, leak and debunk. Maybe this was just away to get something out into the public like the old days. Soften the impact ya know. Just maybe it says,,,,,,, 1/3 of the cities have a crap shoot, 1/3 of the cities will have disruptions, and 1/3 will have failures. ??????

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 21, 1999

Answers

Breaking News - Linda Tripp has come forward with 43 hours of damning audiotapes. The tapes reportedly document conversations between the Navy and local utility companies...

Details are SKETCHY at best...

Official Comment: Bill "The NAVY did not have a compliance conversation (sexual relations) with that utility (women), Florida Power & Light.....

Hillary "Tis a vast right wing conspiracy...

-- Liar Liar (pants@fire.ouch), August 21, 1999.


It's a real problem when you overreact to what you wanted so desperately to hear, only to have it evaporate under the light of scrutiny, isn't it? The only responsible course of action is to admit you didn't look before you leaped, and to be more careful next time.

Of course, the childish response is to blame someone, anyone else for your mistake. That's what's going on in this and several other threads as the doomie case collapses as always. It's amusing to watch.

Finally, there is the usual hard core that insists that everyone else is out of step, including the drummer!

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


I've been Y2K aware for about two years now and have made some preparations BUT.... All the doomer predictions have evaporated. Every date that was supposed to spell doom has come and gone. The GPS rollover will be nothing. Monday morning will come and everything will conitnue working. The stock market crash you have all been waiting for will not happen. There will be no bank runs. This website will slowly fade into the sunset and we will all look back and wonder about the foolishness of it all.

-- anti-chainsaw (tree@hugger.com), August 21, 1999.

Flint commented:

"It's a real problem when you overreact to what you wanted so desperately to hear, only to have it evaporate under the light of scrutiny, isn't it? "

Flint, for a LONG time now you have been talking out of both sides of your mouth. Your a PRO at it. Fortunately, floks around here have figured you out (didn;t take that much fuguring) and now your you've gone from back door propaganda to frontal attack (shoulda just shown your colors originally).

NOTHING has evaporated, not even the MASSIVE SPIN program mounted by YOUR pals. The report stands as read, not as modified by the K-MAN. Jim Lord DESERVES much credit for stepping up to the plate knowing the kind of POND SCUM that was out there waiting to defile his credibility.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 21, 1999.


Hey... I really donno what to think about the good Lord's info from the Navy. When I first perused it, I was like, "Oh damn, this y2k thing is worse than i thought!"

The core of Koskinen's rebuttal, though, seems reasonable enough.

If I were in charge the Navy's logistics, I would plan for the worst case scenario. I would asssume that no news equates bad news. I would allocate the necessary resources to the places that could be hardest hit by y2k. I would assume that certain utilities are guilty until proven innocent.

Thus, it seems probable to me that NOT all of the utilities on the list are going to have problems.

HOWEVER, the manner in which this report was released, the attention it got in the media, and the swiftness of the response from the Feds smells pretty darn fishy to me.

If the info had been public & on the Web serveral weeks ago, why did no one see it before? Seems to me that there are those of us out there who monitor y2k extremely closely and hyper-obsessively. Why did this not appear before? I have my doubts that this segment ever saw the light of day, which would imply a LIE on the part of the administration's y2k PR people.

I have my doubts because the Navy would have been threatened with lawsuits from the ill-named utilities on the list.

Thus, it probably WAS a secret. It was a secret becasue they were afraid We the People would react irrationally and not read between the lines and PANIC. When the stuff came out, the info HAD to be spun, and spun rapidly. As in, "no the information was never a secret (WE AREN'T HIDING ANYTHING; THIS STUFF ISN'T SEVERE ENOUGH TO HIDE); and yes this information is only a worse-case assessment (STUFF WON'T BE AS BAD AS IT SAYS IN THE DOCUMENT).

No I don't think you have to invoke anything more complicated, like evil secret plots be Clinton to discredit doomers. I think Clinton himself doubts Y2K is going to be that bad...that's probably how he's being advised, at any rate. (Bad news, when travelling from bottom to top, has a tendency to be very watered down and diluted.)

(No I am not saying I don't think y2k will be bad. My estimate is that it will likely end up a 6-8. JIT will be toast, and that's bad enough.)

-- coprolith (should be coprolite) (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 21, 1999.



"Hold the phone" thread. Please read it Flint. Your clear logic is required. Besides, I just love to see you do the Twist.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.

If your job is national defense, it's only proper to assume the worst until proven otherwise. In the case of y2k, "proof otherwise" is never entirely possible. And it certainly isn't clear to what extent (and to whom, really) this might have been a working document. Certainly it often fundamentally contradicts the only other information out there on some (most) of the utilities, yet the Navy did no testing of these utilities themselves.

It's probably, on balance, NOT a good idea for a tentative document that makes worst-case assumptions as a formality, to become a public document. It's not that the loonies will come to the wrong conclusion (although reasonable people might). The loonies aren't looking for facts or explanations, they are looking for *ammunition*.

When we test devices before releasing them, all of our test plans assume that everything will fail, and that every test that hasn't been performed will find a problem when it is performed. In other words, we're not just watching to see if anything goes wrong, we are actively requiring that things go right. It's a useful mindset -- assume the worst and then PROVE the worst isn't true.

So the true loonies around here are taking the Navy's *assumptions*, ignoring the fact that those assumptions contradict every other known, verified source of information, and treating the assumptions as PROOF of factuality! And when this turns out to be incorrect, the loonies DO NOT change their minds, they just start accusing *someone* of planting this stuff to discredit Lord.

Meanwhile, the utilities are in pretty good (not perfect) shape. And no amount of default worst-case assumptions by the Navy or anyone else will change this.

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


The best thread on this issue can be found

here.

Lewis or whatsis name has provided the clearest, more accurate, and most intelligent insights. Now back to my guitar.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 21, 1999.


Flint commented:

"The loonies DO NOT change their minds, they just start accusing *someone* of planting this stuff to discredit Lord."

Well Flint the longer your posts the bigger the SPIN. It is NOT my contention that this information was planted to discredit Jim Lord, that appears to be YOURS.

It IS my contention that ANYONE who rocks the K-Man's boat with regard to his y2k PLAN will be DISCREDITED. This is, has been and will continue to be a TRADEMARK of this Administration.

Your Pal, Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 21, 1999.


I don't think that link workethed. try this:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HGi

It is where they said something like "how did Koskinen hear about the Navy report?...i told him" Excellent juicy detective work. TB2000 at it's best.

-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 21, 1999.



Actually, there is a pretty consistent picture emerging here...and NO, I haven't made Hyatt rich...I live in a desert where water and sewer will be KAPUT this January...dehydrated food here is as useless as a Miniskirt in a Convent...

The consistent data points, such as they are, have emerged from a combined reading of the GAO reports and the ORIGINAL (undoctored, unspun) Navy report. GAO says, 19 out of 21 cities SERIOUSLY NOT READY, including 11 cities "living in FANTASYLAND" (Senator Dodd) by attempting to finish Q3 and Q4. While not exactly the same as the cities on the Navy list, the rate of potential Infrastructure Breakdown is in the same ballpark for both surveys.

Folks, this isn't September 1998 (Leaving a WHOLE YEAR FOR TESTING).

In TEN DAYS it will be September 1999! Where are the flood of COMPLIANCE documents filed with the SEC? ... State Utility Commissions?...the Comptroller of the Currency? Simple...THEIR NOT DONE!!

Folks, after Turkey day, efforts will slack off. We don't have the 79 work days left...more like 53 effective workdays. Programmers aren't going down with the ship...they were never given the Stock Options to ensure that kind of loyalty.



-- K. Stevens (kstevens@ It's ALL going away in January.com), August 21, 1999.


K Stevens, thanks for the insightful analysis.

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 21, 1999.


Reposting my analysis of this exact issue from another thread.

We think alike FLAME, or more accurately....we can see through the charade.

This is called a set-up folks. The Clinton Administration is famous for them.

They leak what appears to be legit info, only to have it proven later to be all bunk and bullshit that THEY themselves manufactured for discreditation purposes. It tarnishes the political opposition and and labels them as untrustworthy and extremist nutcases hellbent on an action.

The Administration did this with the "Clinton sired an illegitimate son story" which came out during the Lewinski scandal - which turned out to be bogus and painted the Conservatives in the light of a 'vengeance at all costs lobby' out to get the prez. This happened JUST before the Kathleen Willey story went mainstream. It is thought that the "Bastard Son Story' did so much damage to the Conservative campaign to out the scandals of this president, that even when CBS ran the Willey interview (amidst the patented demouguogery), most folks discarded her claims as 'Just another one'.

This Administration is also famous for leaking true revelations of trouble early to select sources that either sit-on and bury the news or give it little attention, so that when the expose's on the real meat of a situation come forth, the Administration calims "That's old news. Nothing new."

With Koskinen being the right-hand-man of Billy Jeff on Y2K, look for this sort of thing to continue at a breakneck pace regarding Y2K. Truth and bullshit leaked together to confuse and sidetrack the main event.

It is possible this document was a legitimate tool to do nothing more than provide the Navy a blueprint to design contingency plans. It is possible that this document is a legitimate report of the current situation as the navy saw it. But it is more possible, that this document was picked-up, and deliberately leaked with enough 'Offical' oomph to comprise it's validity, to do nothing more than paint us Tinfoils as desperate and misguided.

Do not be ignorant of the devil's devices. These guys are Masters of deceit and Demouguogery.

This Navy report story stinks....it smells of deliberacy and magicians' sleight-of-hand to focus attention away from the REAL MEATY ISSUES about to come forth in rapid-fire succession.

Sifting fact from fiction is a tool these Professionals use to keep America in it's stupor.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.


Thankyou...K...---...

-- Les (yoyo@tolate.com), August 21, 1999.

Thanks, INVAR. I knew I saw that classic case somewhere. A better illustration of what I described I couldn't have asked for. I *love* it when I can set up hoops for the loonies to jump through, and they just can't help themselves.

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


Flint my dear misguided fellow,

You set no such hoops for me my friend. I posted that reply yesterday BEFORE you had given your 2 cents worth on the and MUCH BEFORE FLAME AWAY had posted this thread.

I was adding to what Flame had posted above. I wasn't responding to your take on the matter.

Nice try though.

No score.

-- INVAR (gundark@sw.net), August 21, 1999.


Flint,

You are taking the approach of arguing the content of the Navy report. Who cares what the Navy thinks. They're made up of people just like you and me. None of us knows what's going to happen. The problem is the conflicting reports, the suppression of any bad news to protect the powers that be, the spin. The Navy report is significant not because it predicts widespread failures, but that it openly exposes government in a spin campaign designed to distort and sugar-coat the facts.

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 21, 1999.


INVAR, thank you for seeing the pattern and nailing it to the board!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 21, 1999.

Give it up Jim. I made the exact point that you just made to Flint yesterday when he was stomping his hoof to count how many 'loonies' had fallen for this magnificent 'hoax', like some circus horse act.

He's on a 'loonie' binge, and he can't get off.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 21, 1999.


Jim:

An interesting interpretation. Of course the government is spinning y2k for public image purposes. But the content of this material still matters. After all, if it's incorrect (and apparently it is), then it will conflict with whatever IS correct. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to claim that the truth (whatever it may be) MUST be spin, solely on the grounds that it conflicts with a report known to be false. You would *expect* factual content to conflict with erroneous content, wouldn't you? It simply isn't logical to say that the 'official' government position is spin simply because some 'unofficial' document now proven false conflicts. Sheesh.

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


Moderation questions? read the FAQ