"Deliberate Misleading Isn't Lying" According To Flint: Now, FINISH All Your Preps ASAP.greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
This was one of Flint's posts on the rather silly "Awareness vs Alarmism" thread.Jack: I think I should point out that what Hoffmeister has said is that, technically speaking, the FAA has NOT YET been caught in a SINGLE lie about their remediation status. Their statements have been deliberately misinterpreted (and one could argue that the FAA shot themselves in the foot by setting up a complex reporting schedule, but that's another story). But no matter how many times you chant that the FAA has been caught lying, the TRUTH is that this has not yet happened even once.
Perhaps you've read some of the discussions between Hoff and Robert Cook, and then ignored everything but Cook's mistakes? Perhaps you are so determined to convince yourself that the FAA is lying that nothing else can penetrate to you? You sound like someone who memorized a catechism as a child and got it wrong. It's too hard- wired by now for real thought to get through.
This is NOT to say the FAA has been entirely honest, you understand. Only that they haven't yet been caught directly. Each of their status reports has been technically accurate, even if deliberately misleading.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 08, 1999.
There has been a lot of smoke on this forum over the months, dramatically increasing as of late, that most of us believe EVERYONE is LYING about Y2K.
Ignoring the patronizing tone of that attack by Hoff, Flint (and, separately, the outright trolls), my consistent answer has been, "would that it were that simple. If everyone were lying, analyzing and preparing for Y2K would be easy. The problem is that some are, some aren't and it is very difficult to discern which is which."
I won't repeat my ethical disdain for Flint's "outing" of himself with respect to truth and falsehood. "I didn't have sex with that woman." "It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' ... 'is'." No doubt, he'll have a Koskinen-like defense to post here or a claim that I am viciously attacking him. My other favorite is, "you and Yourdon are doing the deliberate misleading." As my teens say, "AS IF."
My point is simple:
Y2K has been replete with "deliberately misleading" for years and the pace is increasing, not decreasing. It will increase by several orders of magnitude over the next six months.
Consider how many threads (look at the hospital one yesterday if you'd like) casually report the most ludicrous actions, like pasting Y2K ready stickers on machines that haven't even been scanned by those silly PC utilities. I am personally familiar with similar cases, some more serious.
Where I live, "deliberately" misleading somebody is lying. Shucks, we even dare to discipline our children when they deliberately mislead someone because, gosh, we old-fashioned, antique folks consider it to be .... lying.
Whichever it is, far from slackening our preparation at this stage, we are working through a final list that has over thirty actions and items on it -- and we are determined to be done with that within a month. This, after 18 months of preparations.
While the actions of TPTB have ensured that our community will be far less prepared (and could be more dangerous) than it should have been, my responsibility to my family hasn't been cancelled by their irresponsibility.
Or by their "deliberately misleading" us.
In fact, the more they "deliberately mislead", the more we prepare. Do we prepare as a talisman? Of course not. Nothing save the grace of God will see us through. It's just a matter of doing what is right.
And speaking what is true.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999
Aw, c'mon, BD. It all depends on how you define "deliberately" and "misleading". ;-)Seriously, thanks for an excellent post.
-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), September 09, 1999.
Thanks BigDog,Simply put, the Liberal Mindset will NEVER admit to an outright LIE. They will as in Flint's case (" Each of their status reports has been technically accurate, even if deliberately misleading"} SPIN it thusly.
Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 09, 1999.
Is there a distinction between a misleading statement and a lie? The end is the same: knowledge is not gained, conclusions become errors, and human relationships are scandalized (if not also the possibility of truth!). While a man has a certain right to remain silent and not incriminate himself, for lack of courage and for fear of punishment and consequences, it has become acceptable for some to mislead or lie as long as they don't get caught. Those who employ such deceptions are unwilling to be responsibile for what they do and fail to do. Some of us, however, will continue to recognize that such irresponsibility is nothing less than bad faith. And as such, they have scandalized the common good and human society (they harm these things). Indeed, those who deceive us have made the possibility of trust, cooperation, and society more difficult.Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 09, 1999.
BD, are you talking about the "I'm taking all my money out of the bank. I've got a year's worth of food and supplies" Flint, or the "Y2K will be insignificant. This forum is dying" Flint?
-- a (a@a.a), September 09, 1999.
My mother-in-law, a Swarthmore summa cum laude circa 1950 (ie, no bimbo), made a comment recently to the effect that her generation was shocked in the late 1950s and into the 1960s as "deliberate misleading" gradually became a STRATEGY as well as a TACTIC (of COURSE she is not so naive as to believe that lying began then), first of government and, later, corporations.She rejects as utterly specious the notion that they "always" did it, IN THE SENSE that there was an approved culture of pragmatic deceit. In her opinion, that is flatly not so .... another "lie", if you will.
Lying, in the PUBLIC as well as the private sphere was condemned throughout most of our national history, was actively discouraged and whistle-blown in most cases. It happened but in the "dark" where lying should take place (some of you will understand what I mean by that statement).
If Y2K turns out to be a BITR, it will not absolve the "deliberate misleading" one bit. If it turns out to be the cause of people's deaths (say, my elderly parents, who, by and large, trust the "deliberate misleading" about Y2K), it will be the apotheosis of a culture that loves to lie ... and to defend lying.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Sadly, many of them will get caught next year. And well be caught up in it with them.OTOH, many of them will get away with it. Or not.
Time, and global Y2K and related or even triggered repercussions, will tell.
Appears, over and over, to be all about... choices made... and lessons to learn.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.
"Each of their status reports has been technically accurate, even if deliberately misleading.".......
It's a good thing bridges aren't engineered and assembled using such lies and misstatements of fact.
Falsehood is invariably the child of fear in one form or another.
-- no talking please (breadlines@soupkitchen.gov), September 09, 1999.
Lying has become an accepted practice in both the public and private sectors. It goes by many aliases but in the end is simply "Old Fashioned LYING". We are subject to it in every facet of our lives.Ray
-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), September 09, 1999.
Stan -- As you are no doubt aware, the entire "world view" implied by your post is itself antique and mocked. Behaving in "bad faith" is a meaningless concept to most. As you also know, cultures have recovered those concepts even when they did seem irretrievably lost. I am NOT fatalistically pessimistic about life post-Y2K. But first, we have to call a spade a spade.And, yes, pollies, deliberate misleading by GIs is no more defensible. Does it happen? I'm sure, though I have had a hard time agreeing with some of the claims to it made here about Yourdon, to name one prominent example.
Here, though UNCONFIRMED by me (offered just by way of parable, so don't attack me as though I am accusing Bennett), is the type of discourse I am referring to:
Another thread asserts that Bennett said publicly on CBN that he himself is preparing for more than two weeks. Yet, he maintains publicly elsewhere that the public should prepare only for three days. Of COURSE this can be spun to death with all sorts of private/public good tradeoffs. But my parents (taking them again as "average intelligent citizen") hear the public three-day statement as intuitively equivalent to Bennett himself doing the same thing for his own family. Otherwise, of course, he would publicly recommend "more than two weeks of preparation".
That is the way that ordinarily truthful discourse USED to be conducted.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
You da DOG!BigDog I couldn't have said it any better, not that I need to. ANYBODY that lies to me is untrustworthy from that time forth, IMHO. I just can't get over how "truthisms" are not lying.
Did you know that oral sex is not really sex? Oh really... try telling that one to my wife...
Deliberate "truthisms" as you spoke about seem to have sprung to life in droves in modern society. Has anyone seen the new cars on TV ads for $8888??? Well, that ONE car that is $8888 is just barely a car. This is the same as lying to me, IMHO.
Stipulations, special conditions, LIMITED LIFE TIME warranty (I love that one...), and the grandaddy of them all... O.A.C., on approved credit...
Lying is a part of "normal" modern society. When I was a kid, a man was taken at his word. A handshake was BETTER than a written contract. What happened?
There is a decay happening in the moral fiber of mankind. It is nothing to cheat on your spouse, and then lie about it. It is nothing to kill someone, as long as you have enough money to PAY for it, and keep your ass from going to jail.
(religious on)
Man cannot rule man. We were not meant to rule ourselves. We are proving it very rapidly now. We have poisoned ourselves with lead just as the Roman Empire did. We did it with the lead additives we used in automotive gasoline for about 80 years. The Romans simply used lead water pipes. The decadence of the people of the Roman Empire is happening here and now.
(religious off)
Hell on earth is an appropriate phrase. Yet today it is not a physical hell, it is a mental one...
Y2K may only be a beginning....
growlin' at the TV...
The Dog
-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 09, 1999.
Dog said:"Lying is a part of "normal" modern society. When I was a kid, a man was taken at his word. A handshake was BETTER than a written contract. What happened?"
We don't need to rehash the "was yesteryear a golden age"? nonsense on this thread. Much worse then, much better then and likewise now. But about the issue of TRUTHFULNESS there can be no doubt.
Dog, what you say above WAS the way things were.
Returning to Y2K, the political and cultural dynamic (spiritual dynamic, if you will) that it exposes is far worse, IMO, than the technical and that is DAMN bad. The right out in the open (no lies here, I'll give them that) decision to turn Y2K into a PR event for government and business mgmt (remember NERC?) is the repulsive face of "lying" that has been elevated to a "national security" strategy.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you CAN make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."
(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass)
-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.
Lying or misleading as a strategy...great topic for today...the dreaded 9999.Since I'm not an IT professional I decided to keep an open mind about today. Since I want Y2k to be a BITR I will be glad if the day comes and goes without any problems.
Why the heck has the media, which up until now has downplayed every aspect of Y2k, jumped on the 9999 problem with such vigor and drama and urgency? The majority wouldn't give the slightest bit of credibility to the issues at the beginning of the week and yesterday and today it seems as though this "Y2k problem" has become front page news. News about no news...
Something is fishy and smells like strategy to me.
Mike
=============================================================
-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), September 09, 1999.
Humpty Dumpty, President of the United States...sniffin' at the door...
The Dog
-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 09, 1999.
Anyone who thinks there's always honesty about Y2K should read this 1998 article called "Liar's Poker":http://www.pathfinder.com/time/digital/daily/0,2822,13653,00.html
Note the comments about the U.S Postal Service.
-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), September 09, 1999.
Big Dog:So sad, and so true. Apparently following the course of so many other major civilizations, which mistake "thoughts" for "reality". Even so, "reality" has a way of winning in the end.
-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.
Big Dog,While good faith seems out of date in the hippest of conversations about culture, it seems that it remains a principle of some interest in regard to the law. Still, I find it difficult to speculate whether or not the necessary conditions exist (or may arise) where good faith will be appreciated and much practised as a necessary civic virtue. If the right butterfly makes the right wing movement in Antartica on the longest and coldest night of winter, it may just work out. [grin]
However, I am concerned about Flint. He has seemed to be rational and clear-headed at times, but in actuality, his cavalier defense of the counterfeiting of facts makes me pause. With great regret, what he has written before and what he shall write hereforth must be ignored by me. Unless he was unclear in his statement, Flint has made a judgement about truth that is inconsistent with what I believe to be necessary for dialogue. I will regret the absence of an appropriate counterpoint to my pessimism.
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 09, 1999.
Bigdog:If I recall correctly, Flint was addressing the FAA in his remark and their choice to state that they were nn% completed with one phase rather than state that they were n% completed with the next phase. I see quite a bit of this in both the press and on Y2k fora. If 42% of SMEs (for instance) haven't yet completed remediation, a pessimistic presentation will emphasize that 42%. A more optimistic presentation would emphasize the 58% that WERE complete. Neither could be equated with lying, but could be interpreted as deliberately misleading.
My first semester of University, we were asked to read an essay entitled something like "The Dreaded Tomato Addiction." The author used statistics as "proof" that tomatoes were harmful. [I feel like Dan Quayle right now...does tomato have an e or not?] The "evidence" of the dangers in eating tomatoes were apparent, per the author, as those who have eaten tomatoes for 100 years are either dead or their bodies have shriveled and shrunken. As further "proof", the author stated that if one submerged their face in a bowl of tomatoes for more than 3 minutes, one would die. No lies were presented, but wouldn't you agree that it was deliberately misleading?
I, personally, feel that the FAA was justified in their concentrating on the more positive statistic for public consumption. They'd received all that press coverage regarding planes falling out of the sky, and some folks actually believed that, as evidenced by some new articles posted by Ray? in which folks cancelled flights for September 9th.
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), September 09, 1999.
Anita said [I reply]If I recall correctly, Flint was addressing the FAA in his remark and their choice to state that they were nn% completed with one phase rather than state that they were n% completed with the next phase. I see quite a bit of this in both the press and on Y2k fora. If 42% of SMEs (for instance) haven't yet completed remediation, a pessimistic presentation will emphasize that 42%. A more optimistic presentation would emphasize the 58% that WERE complete. Neither could be equated with lying, but could be interpreted as deliberately misleading.
[No, not so. It isn't misleading, deliberate or otherwise, to choose either side of a validly secured statistic. "Interpretation" is not the same as "misleading". In the case you cite, the reader could do simple math and make up their own mind about the interpretation, but they weren't misled.]
My first semester of University, we were asked to read an essay entitled something like "The Dreaded Tomato Addiction." The author used statistics as "proof" that tomatoes were harmful. [I feel like Dan Quayle right now...does tomato have an e or not?] The "evidence" of the dangers in eating tomatoes were apparent, per the author, as those who have eaten tomatoes for 100 years are either dead or their bodies have shriveled and shrunken. As further "proof", the author stated that if one submerged their face in a bowl of tomatoes for more than 3 minutes, one would die. No lies were presented, but wouldn't you agree that it was deliberately misleading?
[If the objective of this was to present a "lie", ie., that eating tomatoes is dangerous, as "truth", then yes, it was effectively lying. The fact that lying can be done cleverly or that statistics can be used to support it is not something just discovered in the 20th century, but it is still lying.]
I, personally, feel that the FAA was justified in their concentrating on the more positive statistic for public consumption. They'd received all that press coverage regarding planes falling out of the sky, and some folks actually believed that, as evidenced by some new articles posted by Ray? in which folks cancelled flights for September 9th.
[I've already dealt with that above. The point is, Flint had no problem defending "deliberate misleading." I call it "lying" for all the reasons I stated at the top of my post and in my other posts on this thread. Your post doesn't provide evidence that would make me feel that "deliberate misleading" is somehow "ok" or that it is merely a matter of "how one handles statistics."]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Remember the Maine.
-- Spidey (in@jam.yippie), September 09, 1999.
The phrase "deliberate misleading", and the notion that it is not lying come straight from the lawyer/politician handbook. At the close of the day each of us must decide whether that is part of our personal ethical system. Seems to me that everyone must understand this in order to navigate the universe we inhabit. Just what appears to be my two cents.--have sheets, will stand upon hills
-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.
Let's see if I got this right. The FAA didn't actually lie, they just expressed themselves in a way that's easy to misinterpret. And Big Dog doesn't quite lie about what I wrote, he just describes it in a way that's easy to misinterpret. At least on the part of those determined to agree with him.But that makes FAA liars, and it makes Big Dog a hero! He doesn't even try to split this particular hair, because he knows logic is a pearl before his target swine. Only the "right" politics and conclusions matter.
Meanwhile the real question remains: Just where does the FAA stand now, and where will they stand at rollover? This is important, not only for those who may wish to fly, but for anyone who uses anything that gets flown. And let's face it, the FAA may have been consistent all along, but we really don't know for sure if they've been consistently accurate or consistently wrong.
But Big Dog doesn't care about the real question, he cares about calling disagreeable facts lies so that his preconvictions won't be disturbed. Which is why he's here, by his own admission, preaching to those who share his prejudices. It's just so damn comfortable that way!
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.
Flint said [I reply]Let's see if I got this right. The FAA didn't actually lie, they just expressed themselves in a way that's easy to misinterpret. And Big Dog doesn't quite lie about what I wrote, he just describes it in a way that's easy to misinterpret. At least on the part of those determined to agree with him.
[How did I do this? You're the one who described them as "deliberately misleading"? I referred readers to the thread in which you said it, so they could go there for themselves.] But that makes FAA liars, and it makes Big Dog a hero! He doesn't even try to split this particular hair, because he knows logic is a pearl before his target swine. Only the "right" politics and conclusions matter.
[If they have been deliberately misleading, as appears to be the case in my opinion AND YOURS, yes. I have no idea what the rest of this paragraph means, except that it avoids the issue.]
Meanwhile the real question remains: Just where does the FAA stand now, and where will they stand at rollover? This is important, not only for those who may wish to fly, but for anyone who uses anything that gets flown. And let's face it, the FAA may have been consistent all along, but we really don't know for sure if they've been consistently accurate or consistently wrong.
[I don't care if they've been consistently accurate or consistently wrong, per se. Many orgs will/are. The issue at hand is: is deliberately misleading equivalent to lying? Is it, Flint?]
But Big Dog doesn't care about the real question, he cares about calling disagreeable facts lies so that his preconvictions won't be disturbed. Which is why he's here, by his own admission, preaching to those who share his prejudices. It's just so damn comfortable that way!
[The only thing that's becoming disagreeable is the growing disconnect between your claim to be analyzing Y2K rationally and your own growing irrationality, which many posters are spotting. And once again, instead of answering, you're actually dissing the rest of the forum in the guise of dissing me. Let's try again:
Flint: is "deliberate" misleading "lying" or isnt' it or does it depend on whether the moon is in the seventh house today? Parse that one for a while.]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
"I, personally, feel that the FAA was justified in their concentrating on the more positive statistic for public consumption."Sorry, I can't agree. Jane said they were 99% finished. Now, if she would have said that they were 99% finished with phase x, that would have been fine, and I would agree with your statement. But she didn't. Call it what you want. I call it a lie.
The FAA now says they are 100% fixed, 100% tested, 100% installed, and 100% certified. Last week they changed their IVV vendor. Why? What is IVV doing there if everything is 100% certified? You can call it what you want.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.
Even the phrase "for public consumption" is a debased construction, implying that something semi-"true" needs to be thrown to the circus. It's a strange thing -- the people I meet every day work hard, raise their families and make intelligent conversation with each other. Yet, TPTB treat them as stupid dolts who must be fed approved material for consumption.Sysman, I agree. Thanks for pointing that out.
OK, Flint, yes, let's call the FAA LIARS. If their planes fly on 1/1/2000, they will be fortunate LIARS. As will we, their "consuming public," who pays their sorry salaries.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Sheesh. The FAA's pronouncements were widely (but by no means completely) misinterpreted at first. NOW, did the FAA *intend* that they be misinterpreted? That's a judgment call, and I personally suspect that that was at least in the back of their minds. I further suspect that later they regretted this tactic, since the more than lost any initial advantage they may have gained. Certainly if it WAS their intention to create a false impression (and even Big Dog can't read minds, though God may have confided in him [grin]), then that was a Bad Idea.To Sysman: Actually, the FAA *did* say they were 99% complete with phase TWO. Just because the media omitted that part doesn't mean it wasn't in the testimony. Which has been linked to from here multiple times, and every time, sure enough, it mentions the current phase, just like it did originally. So you have made the same error Anita E made -- blaming FAA for your own mistake. Bad form.
I guess if Big Dog decides to misinterpret what anyone says so as to fit his preconceptions, he's at least aware enough of what he's doing to invoke the grace of God just in case.
But for the record, I did NOT say the FAA was deliberately trying to be misinterpreted, since I can neither read minds nor does God whisper FAA's intentions in my ear. All I said was that IF they did it deliberately, it was poor tactics on their part.
Meanwhile, the real issue has to do with airplanes. The real issue is NOT how effectively Big Dog can misinterpret his own misreading of the FAA into a lie on the part of FAA. Blaming others for his mistakes is childish. God ought to guide him in such matters, surely?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.
Come on, Flint!You're actually requesting Sysman provide backup?
I mean, if it was good enough for BigDog, it should be good enough for everyone else.
-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), September 09, 1999.
Flint said [I reply]Sheesh. The FAA's pronouncements were widely (but by no means completely) misinterpreted at first. NOW, did the FAA *intend* that they be misinterpreted? That's a judgment call, and I personally suspect that that was at least in the back of their minds. I further suspect that later they regretted this tactic, since the more than lost any initial advantage they may have gained. Certainly if it WAS their intention to create a false impression (and even Big Dog can't read minds, though God may have confided in him [grin]), then that was a Bad Idea.
[You are the one who defended "deliberate misleading". Is "deliberate misleading", "lying", or isn't it, Flint? That is the subject of this thread.]
To Sysman: Actually, the FAA *did* say they were 99% complete with phase TWO. Just because the media omitted that part doesn't mean it wasn't in the testimony. Which has been linked to from here multiple times, and every time, sure enough, it mentions the current phase, just like it did originally. So you have made the same error Anita E made -- blaming FAA for your own mistake. Bad form.
[I'll let Sysman respond to that if he wishes. Flint: is "deliberate misleading," lying, or not?]
I guess if Big Dog decides to misinterpret what anyone says so as to fit his preconceptions, he's at least aware enough of what he's doing to invoke the grace of God just in case.
[I invoked God's grace thoughtfully, with reference to preparations, as you doubtless understood.]
But for the record, I did NOT say the FAA was deliberately trying to be misinterpreted, since I can neither read minds nor does God whisper FAA's intentions in my ear. All I said was that IF they did it deliberately, it was poor tactics on their part.
[For the record, this is what you said: "This is NOT to say the FAA has been entirely honest, you understand. Only that they haven't yet been caught directly. Each of their status reports has been technically accurate, even if deliberately misleading." Not surprisingly, you are now parsing your "if" very carefully.
A straightforward reading of "not ... entirely honest", not "yet been caught directly" and "even if deliberately misleading" leaves no doubt about your original meaning.]
Meanwhile, the real issue has to do with airplanes. The real issue is NOT how effectively Big Dog can misinterpret his own misreading of the FAA into a lie on the part of FAA. Blaming others for his mistakes is childish. God ought to guide him in such matters, surely?
[You know I rarely use religious language on the forum. I'll use some now: you are the one mocking God here as well as mocking me. Not a smart eternal move. But He is well able to take care of Himself on that score; my help not needed.
I'm gathering that this latest post is "deliberately intended" to convey the impression that I am a religious zealot who thinks that only I am correct and that I know what everyone is "thinking"?
I suppose, by indirection, your real answer is, "deliberate misleading" is NOT "lying." OK, thanks for the clarification.
And, as I always like to say, Flint ---
"Someone had to be right about Y2K. It just happened to be me."]
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Readers --- Please note that the imperative on this thread is to complete your preparations, not to argue with Flint.In the teeth of a huge amount of deliberate misleading about Y2K, your safest action is to do everything you can reasonably do to safeguard your family and, so far as possible, your community.
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Flint:Why, oh why are you having such a hard time keeping information correct?
You said, "To Sysman: Actually, the FAA *did* say they were 99% complete with phase TWO. Just because the media omitted that part doesn't mean it wasn't in the testimony. Which has been linked to from here multiple times, and every time, sure enough, it mentions the current phase, just like it did originally. So you have made the same error Anita E made -- blaming FAA for your own mistake. Bad form."
But, what I REALLY said was: "You know, it would be much easier to believe the FAA has been forthcoming if they made an effort to correct the "mistaken" media reports -- do you have URLs showing their reps saying, 'no, no, no, we're only 99% done with a little piece of our work'? Absent that, we are left with the strong conclusion that they were WILLING participants in misleading the public. Honest agencies with nothing to gain by lies, don't have to do this kind of thing, and will make serious efforts to "correct the record"."
Where's my mistake, Flint? Perhaps, in believing that there are "honest agencies"?
Once again, do you have URLs showing where the FAA tried to get the "mistaken notion" corrected????
-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), September 09, 1999.
You are correct Flint, here's the link and quote:Garvey, Jane - Hearing Testimony
"By tomorrow, September 30, the OMB deadline for renovations, the FAA is scheduled to complete renovations of 99% of all required systems"
Silly me, listining to the media. Funny, how with the hundreds of press releases on the FAA site, there isn't one about this testimony. They left it up to the reporters to draw their own conclusions. It's there in black and white, assessment done, 99% renovated, testing under way. Why do you suppose all those reporters got it wrong?
Joe Sixpack probably isn't on the internet, and even if he is, he isn't researching and analyzing Y2K like us wackos. He relies on the media for his information. Isn't that what this is really about Flint, public perception?
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), September 09, 1999.
The FAA is playing the same game as NERC. Several folks have come up to me today and said, "Hey - I hear all the power companies passed their y2k test today!"Yeah right whatever.
-- a (a@a.a), September 09, 1999.
Yes, a, and it's a good thing there is no DELIBERATE misleading going on in the petroleum industry either, as per this thread:Why, shucks, I just wonder why I waste all this time preparing when everyone is so blamed honest?
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Oops. Won't do lines properly for HTML in my browser:http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tclmsg_id=001N9C
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
(continuing my preparations).........David Palm...I dearly love that quotation from Lewis Caroll's Through The Looking Glass. Thanks for reminding me. More or less, LOL.
--She in the sheet upon the hill.
-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.
"But no matter how many times you chant that the FAA has been caught lying, the TRUTH is that this has not yet happened even once."I caught them in a lie, I have proof. But I also know that the FAA could easily get away with it with another press release. I have seen many people in this business LIVE by press releases. It makes their lives easier.
The lie was my big scoop for the broadcast today, and my bosses killed the story. The newsmedia is failing to get this story out. Is it because we are lazy and no one is asking questions? Yes, that's part of it. But there are also some who are trying, only to get our PROOVED stories shut down by the "journalistic instinct" of superiors who "don't believe" in Y2K.
-- Researcher (tao8@earthlink.com), September 09, 1999.
Amazing! Utterly amazing that people continue to be amazed at the deliberate misleading, when they know that most politicians are educated in the "legal system", and that most corporate folks function in the "legal" world of corporations and governments....and still they are amazed at the deliberate misleading....THAT is what is most amazing,...that so many continue to be amazed and continue to buy into, coopt themselves into that system. Quit being amazed. Put yourself in another world where politician/Barnumesque behavior has no relevance. In massive infrastructure failure they will cease to exist, or at least cease to wield influence. People need to stop looking for daddys in government and in the sky. Come on, Lovelies,...I know you're smarter than this.
--She in the sheet upon the hill.
-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 09, 1999.
The GAO says that the FAA is not really, quite, exactly, just so "ready". Yet, gosh, I thought that they have been describing themselves in the "popular press" as COMPLETELY READY for quite some time now. That's what, err, my parents think and they read the papers in San Diego EVERY DAY. They even send me clippings that say things, like, "FAA now ready for Y2K".Sure a good thing that they're not DELIBERATELY misleading anybody. Or, you know, LYING.
http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Nbo
-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.
Researcher,If you can demonstrate that the FAA lies and your editors don't want to run with it, go ahead and break the story here. Or would such action be a seen as violation or offense of your employment?
Sincerely, Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), September 09, 1999.
BigDog:Yow! All these new contentions!
I don't imagine they're influenced by the New Moon.
Prep wise, I'm about one third through stockpiling kerosene.
At this rate I should finish before the next Full Moon.
-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), September 09, 1999.