CBS News tonight reported that new information from NTSB radar analysis has concluded that an Italian DC-9 commercial passenger that crashed 19 years ago was actually shot down by a NATO air to air missile meant for a Libyan fighter. Researchers have maintained all along that an extensive cover-up was perpetrated at the highest levels of government to conceal the true cause of the crash. The downing of TWA Flight 800 now becomes even more suspect.

Will Flint and the pollyannas will argue that the officials were not lying, but rather "deliberately misleading" the public and families of lost loved ones?

-- a (a@a.a), September 09, 1999

Answers

They managed our perception too.

-- KoFE (your@town.USA), September 09, 1999.

perception is a distortion of reality

or is it reality is a distortion of perception?

-- (I2 @don't know.gov), September 09, 1999.

'a':

Since you ask, I'd say they were lying. And from all I've read about flight 800, either they're lying or they're like a teenager's parents -- they don't know where he's been and they don't want to.

What's amusing about the FAA is that their "lies" have become the doomy poster child -- the other fears combine wishing real real hard with extremely liberal interpretations of many facts of y2k with treating all possibilities as equally likely, and many other techniques for fabricating a sow's ear out of silk.

But it's comical that when someone threatens the "Myth of the Lying FAA" with facts, the doomies rise up in terror. Big Dog starts a separate thread with the sole purpose of saving the "Lying FAA" leg from being kicked out from under the doomie position, leaving no legs at all. And how does he try to save this leg? With facts? Oops, can't do that, that's the whole problem. So instead, it's an attack on the *ethics* of whoever cited those nasty facts. Maybe if Hoff and I are discredited, those troublesome facts will go away. And if the facts go away, then Big Dog's convictions will have their leg back. And then he'll be happy, and all his sycophants will applaud. And when the planes continue to fly, he's already got a prepared position -- they were *lucky liars*! HAR har har.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.

Flint, I'd love to know why you think "they" are lying about TWA800 BUT not about Y2K. Any "they".

Can you say "disconnect"???

I knew ya' couldn't :)

-- Brent James Bushardt (brentj@webt.com), September 09, 1999.

Wrong, Flint. I don't actually care about the FAA one way or the other. My own intuition is that the planes will be fine, the airports will be snarled and they'll tell us it has nothing to do with Y2K. But it's hard to know, ain't it?

You defended the legitimacy of the FAA "deliberately misleading", so I asked whether or not this didn't equate to "lying". That was the purpose of that thread and I'm still waiting for an answer. Is "deliberately misleading" equivalent to "lying" or not, whether it's the FAA, the IRS, IBM or your mama who is doing it?

A simple "yes" will end this issue and I'll gladly enter it as evidence on your behalf on the other thread that has you so worked up.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.

Flint: Just because BD thinks FAA lied does not mean he thinks ATC post 2000 is doomed (BTW, would you now like to debunk the DoD's "deliberately misleading" statements on y2k readiness?)

What it does reveal, however, is a pattern. There is a concerted effort being made to spin y2k severity. By the banks. By the telcos. By the oil & gas industry. By NERC. And yes, by FAA. And it has worked marvelously. People by and large regard y2k as a hoax. My local newspaper has printed almost no y2k stories and people at work are talking about how today's "Grid test" has solved the y2k problem. The local news did a rare story on 9999 and y2k tonight, and folks called in with questions like "I heard that some 13 year old kid had invented a solution to y2k, is that true?" Its pathetic Flint. Its not alarmism. Its not even awareness.

So, whether the FAA lied or mislead is really quite irrelevant IMHO. The outcome has been the same. Very soon now, we will deal with the very real consequences of a population that was lulled to sleep so that the stock and bank industries could enjoy a few more months in the sun. I hope you'll think it was worth it.

Oh, and don't worry about the "legs being kicked from under the doomer's FAA poster child". The y2k dilemma is like a millipede as far as legs go.

-- a (a@a.a), September 09, 1999.

http://www.cbs.com/flat/story_184172.html

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), September 09, 1999.

'a':

I don't want to write a book on this, but when I try to keep it simple, a phrase (even as small as two words) will be taken out of context and repeated. Something, ironically, like "deliberately misleading", as though taking those two words out of context isn't. But oh well, I kind of agree what what you're saying here. Kind of.

Let me put it this way: It is clearly in the best interests of the government and industry to depict y2k in a positive light. Public behavior well outside the normal range of variation (in any way) will overwhelm many systems. Nor can the public do very much to prevent or ameliorate y2k depradations, beyond buying some food and supplies in advance. And if y2k is more than minor, these simple preparations won't amount to much anyway. Universal preparation against major upheaval was never possible. For a very few, yes. For everyone, never.

So the question becomes, can we *know* that these organizations are lying, simply because what they are saying is known to be in their best interests to say? After all, fixing the damn problems (at least the critical problems to take the real curse off y2k) is ALSO in their best interests.

I think a claim that *most* progress/status reports from *most* organizations are exaggerated in some ways, is a very safe assumption. Perhaps in some cases they know better in detail, but I suspect that in most cases, they really *don't* know what they'll face after rollver. The details are what will matter, and these often can't be known, especially when you know you've made a lot of progress but can't quite finish all you'd intended.

Now, say you were a CEO, and knew that your critical systems had been remediated and were in final test, and the tests were going well, and most of your less-critical systems had been remediated and had passed unit testing, and were scheduled for final testing before the end of the year. And let's say somone comes up to you and asks if you're compliant yet. What do you say? Is it *most* descriptive of your current status, to say "Shit, *I* don't know what to expect. We're not completely finished and won't be by rollover."

I ask because from what I read here, this is the *only* answer that will satisfy you and others like you. Because we know it's in their best interests to put a positive spin on their status, by contrast the *only* status report we'll be willing to believe is a completely negative, "we're toast" report. And that's probably even *less* accurate.

In a nutshell, if the news is good but not great, what is the LEAST misleading way of describing that situation to an audience that refuses to accept ANY report other than the worst possible news?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.

Flint said,

"Now, say you were a CEO, and knew that your critical systems had been remediated and were in final test, and the tests were going well, and most of your less-critical systems had been remediated and had passed unit testing, and were scheduled for final testing before the end of the year. And let's say somone comes up to you and asks if you're compliant yet. What do you say? Is it *most* descriptive of your current status, to say "Shit, *I* don't know what to expect. We're not completely finished and won't be by rollover."

I know this is an advanced ethical concept for you, Flint, but what you say, on the assumption that your descripton of the above situation starts out as accurate and honest, is,

"Our critical systems have been remediated and are in final test. Most of our other systems have also been remediated and scheduled for final test before the end of the year. We're not yet compliant, but we are confident that we now understand our systems well enough to meet the needs of our customers in 2000 and beyond."

BTW, Flint, is "deliberate misleading", "lying"?

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.

Big Dog:

First, that's just what many are saying. And many on this forum are calling it spin, and happy-face, and lies. It might be true, and as CEO you might know in your heart you were honest, but how happy will you be to be called a liar anyway?

As for whether "deliberately misleading" is "lying", I can only point out that you are doing everything in your power to deliberately mislead about what I've said. So if it's lying, you stand self- convicted. And if you come back with some self-righteous claim that you *aren't* trying to mislead, this only compounds one lie with another. I know you have started to come all unraveled with knee-jerk hatred of any disagreement, and I feel a bit sorry for you. Now, we find out if you feel this justifies lying. I believe you have painted yourself into another corner. I hope your preparation forum is going well, though.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.

Flint said [I reply]

"First, that's just what many are saying. And many on this forum are calling it spin, and happy-face, and lies. It might be true, and as CEO you might know in your heart you were honest, but how happy will you be to be called a liar anyway?"

[I wouldn't be happy but it comes with the territory of being a leader. You tell the truth and sleep at night.]

As for whether "deliberately misleading" is "lying", I can only point out that you are doing everything in your power to deliberately mislead about what I've said. So if it's lying, you stand self- convicted. And if you come back with some self-righteous claim that you *aren't* trying to mislead, this only compounds one lie with another.

[What the heck does this mean? How have I deliberately misled? You're asserting it bravely but all I have done is ask this question, "Is it lying to deliberately mislead?" What does that have to do with this kind of accusation?]

I know you have started to come all unraveled with knee-jerk hatred of any disagreement, and I feel a bit sorry for you. Now, we find out if you feel this justifies lying. I believe you have painted yourself into another corner. I hope your preparation forum is going well, though.

[I'm quite raveled, thank you. Maybe someone else on the forum can help me understand what the heck Flint is trying to say? It is certainly not my intention to lie, but I'm darned if I can spot where I have done so.

Flint, "is it lying to deliberately mislead someone?" At first I thought you would say, "no". Now I'm not sure. Could you be clear about that?]

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.

Flint: Bottom line is, we are not getting the truth. Now, granted, it is possible that truthfulness at an early stage in the game may have started a mass panic that would have crippled the economy and remediation effort. However, I think that is a chance that should have been taken in order to give as many people as possible the chance to prepare (to at least a fraction of the extent that you and I have) and also to allow time for them to adjust to the very real possibility that the days of wine and roses are almost over. We are instead treated like submoronic juveniles and lied to (Yes, LIED to. Get over it.) That is absolutely wrong, and it scares the shit out of me to think what "they" will attempt if and when TS really HTF.

-- a (a@a.a), September 09, 1999.

a -- agree 100%. Having "deliberately misled", it is inconceivable that the truth is now going to be distributed cheerfully near- and post-rollover. If we're lucky, it will be a chorus of, "gee, we did our best. Never mind." If we're unlucky .....

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), September 09, 1999.