Dear Mr. Lasley:

I just read your recently posted editorial, entitled, Michael Hyatt Admits That Y2K Was a Hoax!.

First of all, I categorically deny that Y2K was a hoax. I have never admitted either by my words or actions that it was, contrary to what your article alleges.

Second, you stated that, "Michael Hyatt lives in the Nashville, Tennessee area with his wife and five children. Franklin Sanders lives nearly 250 miles away in the Memphis, Tennessee area with his wife and seven children. Karen Anderson, that family therapists by day and Y2K computer expert by night lives with her husband nearly 700 miles away in Texas." The fact that we were all together on Sunday night, January 2 is, you state, "conclusive proof that neither Franklin Sanders, Karen Anderson nor Michael Hyatt truly believed their doom forecasts of a January 1 meltdown of Western civilization, and that their pleas that their flock of followers load up on survival products was a straightforward fleecing."

Before publishing these kinds of slanderous allegations on a website, you may want to get your facts straight. Franklin Sanders moved from Memphis over a year ago to a rural location some 35 miles from my home in Middle Tennessee. Karen Anderson moved to a location between us both, approximately 15 miles from my home. We met at Franklin's home the night of January 2, as he states in his article. It took me eactly 40 minutes to get there by car with my family. It took Karen and her family about 20 minutes.

If this is the best you can do to prove that I believed Y2K was a hoax, then I would suggest you pull the article and re-tool your argument.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Hyatt

-- Michael S. Hyatt (mshyatt@michaelhyatt.com), January 13, 2000

Answers

Michael,

If Y2K was a hoax, as Mr. Lasley (whom I don't know at all) seems to be suggesting, then there are three aspects of hoaxiness we need to evaluate:

1. Was Y2K a large, complex, serious issue -- or was it a non-existent issue, and a hoax in that sense? Well, I don't see how the critics can explain the reason why American industry would have (according to the estimates from either the GAO or OMB) spent $100 billion on a non- existent problem. Various other estimates have put the U.S. expenditure as high as $300 billion, and the worldwide expenditure at $1 trillion. All of this for a hoax? Did the hoaxsters manage to fool EVERYONE in a leadership position? The counter-argument here is that some hypesters (especially computer vendors) exaggerated the size of the problem in order to persuade gullible companies to spend more on remediation and repairs than they needed to ... but I think this is an issue of perhaps 10% over-expenditure, not a factor of ten. Similarly, maybe some people bought 10 cans of tuna fish, when they could have equally well prepared with 9 cans -- but it's very different to say "I think you bought a little too much fire insurance" than it is to say, "With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, I can see that you didn't need to buy ANY fire insurance.."

2. Were the consequences of a Y2K failure potentially catastrophic -- or would they have been trivial, thus making any predictions of catastrophic outcome a hoax? Well, if it was a hoax in this area, why did the U.S. military feel it was so important for them to bring Russians over to watch our NORAD missile-defense system, and why did the Russians allow our military personnel to watch their system? Why did 80% of the Fortune-500 companies build command centers and "bunkers" if they didn't think there any possibly catastrophic consequences? Why did the Federal government feel it was necessary to build a %50 million Y2K bunker if there were no potentially dangerous consequences of Y2K? Why did ports, elevators, subway lines, gas pipelines, and dozens of other categories of embedded systems get shut down on New Year's Eve if nobody was worried about dangerous consequences? A plausible counter-argument from some of the developing nations is that they had such a small degree of computerization that a Y2K failure would not have made things any worse than they already were ... unless, of course, you happen to end up with a situation like Bhopal or Chernobyl, both of which occurred in developing nations.

3. Was there a serious risk that Y2K projects would not finish in time -- or should we have assumed, optimistically, that almost everyone WOULD finish their Y2K projects because it was in their own best interests to do so? If it turns out that I'm wrong -- as many people seem to assume already -- I think it will be in this category. My major rationale for pessimism in this area was my "deja vu all over again" argument, but that was bolstered considerably by the continuing evidence that large numbers of countries had gotten a VERY late start on Y2K, and that a large percentage (approx 30%) of small U.S. companies intended to do NO y2k remediation. I still haven't figured out why I should have been optimistic about the chances of companies succeeding so incredibly well when there was a hard-core group of companies (and countries) that said they did not even intend to begin. In any case, I think the worst that can be said of any of us -- i.e., those of us who went out on a limb re Y2K -- is that we were wrong in this area, not that we cleverly managed to pull off a hoax.

Ed

-- Ed Yourdon (ed@yourdon.com), January 13, 2000.

we knew it wasn't true anyway. now let's see is mr. lasley has enough integrity to correct his web site. somehow i doubt it. i notice he doesn't leave any room on his site for rebuttal or discussion. he just wants the talk to go one way--his lies/rants to the world. i dare him to be as courageous as michael, ed, and the others who allow for debate.

-- tt (cuddluppy@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Hey Michael! You were very retrained. I wouldn't blame you for getting seriously pissed. There seem to be large doses of "millennial maddness" right now amoung both pollies and doomers. I personally want to thank you for going out on a limb to warn us of a potential problem, whatever the truth about the eventual effects of y2k may be. It is a shame that this whole issue was become so polarized and antagonistic.

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

They attack you, but thet don`t attack the CIA, State Dept. FBI, World Bank . Tava/Beck, Gartner Group, Senator Bob Bennet, Senator Chris Dodd, Paula Gordon, U.S. Naval War College , Secretary of Defense, and many others.

-- Earl (earl.shuholm@worldnet.att.net), January 13, 2000.

yeah, Earl. My thoughts exactly. How can anyone say it was a hoax without attacking the government, banking industry, GOA and the CIA also?

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

Hi, Michael! Glad you responded so quickly and so well. Just six posts below yours, there is a thread about Post-Rollover Transitions. An excellent quote there about people who aren't handling the transition well says:

"I see much of the backlash that has occurred since the rollover as indicative of a post-rollover transition process/reaction that isn't being recognized for what it is. Of course, some people behave quite badly under circumstances most people would consider benign, so if you are currently under attack by a "serial flamer," don't hesitate to set boundaries or ask a forum moderator to intervene."

Then there are just those who are vindictive and nasty by nature. Then there are the paid disinformation PR types. Take your pick...Mr. Lasley is surely one or the other of these.

So glad for all the knowledge you and Karen and Ed and others have contributed to the preparedness-for-ANYTHING-THAT-COMES-OUR-WAY, not only Y2K, that we who listened to you now enjoy. God bless you all!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Sue his butt, Hyatt! Lady?Logic?, you wouldn't know either of those qualities if ran smack into them, but I guess in the circles you frequent you are safe.

-- rumdoodles (rumdoodles@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

Why are the doomers upset with this article? Have they read jim lords article "the good,the bad,the ugly." He calls everybody vile names,example,The press as stupid whores for example,plus many more,but nobody can see this!! This AFTER the fact of y2k. Go to his site and see for yourself!! www.jimlord.to ---- click "whats new" then the article. Of course the doomers will defend him/their slant to the end. Double standards are to be expected in regular world,but it's sad when it comes from the so called "Christian world" Ah well,sheeple populate both sides of the argument.

-- double standards (Doublestandard@detector.com), January 13, 2000.

Wow! it got hot in here all of the sudden. I wonder if there is a way to hook up an alternator to the intense emotions being generated in here and use them to produce alternative energy?

LadyLogic, I appreciate your tone of civility. However, I think the whole issue is a little more complex than what you represent in your note. Many people seem to have been wrong about y2k, including the government, CIA, the Senate committe to name a few. There is no need at this juncture to start the "blame game" and try to pin responsability on a few for generating a "hoax" or earning a living dealing with y2k remediation or preparation.

I personally don't know many people who emptied their bank accounts to prepare for y2k (I'm sure there are some). Most of my y2k preparation money went to Walmart, BJ's, Northern Tools and Home Depot. I bought Yourdon's book and Hyatt's and found them to be helpful and informative. I have bought a lot of books from a lot of people over the years, including Hal Lindsay (gee, I'm embarrassed) and Gary North (oops, where are those asbestos britches?). Selling books does not make Hyatt or Yourdon guilty of any crime.

Why does this issue have to be so polarized? Why is there so much antagonism? Can't we relax for a few months and wait for it to play out before we start trying to crucify doomers or pollies?

What if by April it is evident that there will be no significant economic repercussions from y2k? Do we have to find someone to blame? Can we not just be grateful for those who raised the alarm and those who worked hard and spent a lot of bucks to get it fixed? Why do we have to point fingers and attack people? My God! we overcame a potential global problem that was complex and difficult to clearly identify! Good job everyone! Now lets go back to real life.

Give Yourdon, Hyatt and North a break. Give it some time and perspective. If they were wrong, they will live with the consequences. If there was anyone who promoted or distorted y2k for personal gain, it will come out eventually. Why the rush to crucify them?

Well LadyLogic, there you have my humble thoughts. You seem like a nice person, although some times a little obsessed with correcting us doomers. I know, I know, there are a lot of doomers who are obsessed with proving themselves right and the pollies wrong. I too have been more than a little obsessed with this whole issue and I am clearly addicted to this forum! (smile - chuckle).

Well, I wonder whats next?........

-- JoseMiami (caris@prodigy.net), January 13, 2000.

Before I go off to eat a nice turkey dinner MRE, let me say, you guys--Michael, Ed, and the others who spoke up--did exactly the right thing. Maybe it's tough to deal with these jackasses now, but you have the ultimate satisfaction of having behaved appropriately.

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), January 13, 2000.

Jose, if you think LadyLogic is a nice person, you apparently weren't here a few weeks ago. She started out as a fairly nice person and then suddenly sent through a total change in personality. She became very belligerent and started posting the same messages over and over again, starting a new thread each time. The sysops deleted these useless posts, but I saw quite a few of them before they were deleted. That's why she isn't allowed to post here any more, and her posts are always subject to deletion.

-- Dave (dannco@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

I think it's interesting that the scum at the Bonkers forum gleefully posted the original, libellous story, but haven't bothered to mention the glaring error noted by Mr. Hyatt, which totally discredits the story. So much for their "devotion to truth".

-- Steve Heller (stheller@koyote.com), January 14, 2000.

I just heard that all the mainframes at the county offices of the state have been down all week. This means they can't accept applications for food stamps, unemployment, etc. Can anyone verify? Don't you think it's odd that there is no contigency plan? I do.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 14, 2000.

Sorry - that was the state of Pennsylvania and no it is not a Y2k problem, it is a problem with the new contractors in charge of the mainframes.

-- Amy Leone (leoneamy@aol.com), January 14, 2000.

Check Lasley's website now - he posted a copy of Mr. Hyatt's response, and proceeded to draw his very own special conclusions. Some people just don't get it...

linkaroo

-- hiding (behind@rock.com), January 14, 2000.

It's amazing, isn't it. People like Ed Yourdon and I can quote all kinds of government and business sources validating the threat of the Y2K and the potential impact. We can cite specific instances of Y2K failures and encourage people toward a path of risk management. For this we are labeled "fear mongers" -- or worse.

Meanwhile, people like Mr. Lasley can publish outright falsehoods, impute motives that they have no way of knowing, "reason" -- and I use the term loosely -- their way to completely erroneous conclusions and label themselves "debunkers."

I do think Mr. Lasley is a talented writer. I'm sure he could get a job with "The Globe" or "The National Inquirer." Or perhaps he should just stick to fiction.

-- Michael S. Hyatt (mshyatt@michaelhyatt.com), January 15, 2000.

Wow! A friend alerted me to this thread, and I am truly flattered that all of theY2K Godfather Dons would hold such a meeting as this in an effort to "rub me out."

First, let me say that as a lowly lawyer I do not possess the computer expertise of a Hyatt, who labored so hard to pass that Pascal correspondence course, nor do I have the field experience of a Yourdon, whose vast software knowledge led hi to predict "Ten Year Y2K failures." I am so outgunned on the computer expertise issue, that I didn't have the sense to cash in my mutual funds for gold/silver, stock up on Hyatt's Millennium Wholesale products, or get me one of those Hyatt suggested generators, but let me proceed. Heck, I had to run out for milk on Saturday morning, Jan. 1!

First, it is always humorous to see a whorehouse madame try to defend her honor. I would advise Hyatt, Yourdon and their cabal to keep quiet. After all, spouting ignorance is why they're in the dunce caps as we speak.

Second, all of their predictions were a hoax. The fact that Y2K was always a real software glitch problem, doesn't help Hyatt et al regain dignity on account of an ox cart tipping over in Bangladesh New Year's Day. No, you guys predicted the end of the world as we know it. 'Fess up to stupidity, and move on.

In medieval times, Hyatt and Yordon would have been the village idiots who upon learning that Lady Jane had the flu, would run all over the countryside announcing the arrival of the Black Death. (Oh, and then they would have sold beads to ward off the Plague.)

Now, regarding my "Hoax" ditty. Yes. I erred by trusting the factual information about residency on the Franklin Sanders (Memphis) and Karen Anderson (Texas) websites. That was poor judgment on my part given their Y2K assertions. I violated a cardinal rule--never rely on the words of a proven liar.

After publishing the "Hoax"e article on the morning of January 13, 2000, I received a kind email on the evening of the 13th that appeared to be an authentic response from Michael Hyatt. It said what his post here says, and I amended my article. see http://www.americanwsteland.com/y2khoax.html

If these new factual assertions from Michael Hyatt are true and the fact that Karen Anderson and Franklin Sanders relocated their families to Middle Tennessee is indeed true, then different conclusions are warranted and new questions arise.

First, why do the websites run by Franklin Sanders and Karen Anderson still list their current residences as Memphis and Texas, as of January 12, 2000? Did Sanders and Anderson want to give the appearance that they were operating at arms length from each other and Hyatt?

Second, why did Anderson and Sanders uproot their families and move to Middle Tennessee? Most people only uproot their families to take a better job with better pay. It is reasonable to infer that the Y2K doom predicting business (and the subsequent bonus of having scared folks buy survival stuff from you) was profitable enough to relocate to Middle Tennessee.

Third, why did the three have dinner Sunday night, January 2 at the home of Franklin Sanders? Since Sanders was convicted of a silver and gold scam whereby he didn't charge sales tax or pay the due tax to the state, and that conviction was upheld by the Tennessee Supreme Court in 1996, it may be that Sanders has a probationary curfew and can't be outside his home after dark.

Fourth, why does Hyatt, in his books and on his website, recommend buying gold and silver from Sanders? Wouldn't most folks want to know about Sanders' conviction on a precious metals offense? Wouldn't you want to know if your stock broker had been convicted of a stock trade offense? Why didn't Hyatt mention Sanders' conviction to his trusting flock?

Fifth, why were Hyatt and Anderson traveling in a car on the 2nd? In Hyatt's books and on his website, he asserts that cars will fail on account of their reliance on embedded chips which will malfunction on Janary 1. Apparently, Hyatt and Anderson had faith in their own cars' chips. Further, on the 2nd, Hyatt was still claiming that the worst was yet to come.

Sixth, did Sanders serve spam or one of Hyatt's Millennium Wholesale Food Group's prepackaged, overpriced meals at this dinner?

Seventh, will Hyatt ever reveal all of his Y2K business interests, holdings, ventures and income for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000? Finally, no retraction is necessary because the contentions still stand: 1. Hyatt and a loose confederacy of dunces were working together, linking each other, suggesting buying survival food and services from Hyatt and his cronies, and using the same public speaking agency. 2. Hyatt made money off of book sales, but more substantially, made money off the sale of survival food and products which he could only hawk if he successfully aroused fear in the public. 3. Hyatt ignored all the evidence that Y2K was going to be uneventful because that position doesn't sell generators or food packs. 4. Hyatt could not have believed his dire predictions by December 1, 1999 because the credible and public evidence of a safe January 1 was undeniable. Thus, Hyatt is either seriously mentally challenged or he chose to ignore the evidence. The investigation into Hyatt's financial dealings is ongoing, and all the facts and truth will emerge. Greed, not genuine concern, will prove to be the overriding motive of Hyatt and his ilk. Michael, you (and others) will have to p

-- D. Marty Lasley (info@americanwasteland.com), January 15, 2000.

Point 1:

...as a lowly lawyer..

Point 2:

I violated a cardinal rule--never rely on the words of a proven liar.

I rest my case, D. Marty.

-- Not An Egocentric Yuppie Lawyer (Whew@Thank.God), January 15, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

D. Marty Lasley (info@americanwasteland.com) said on this thread First, let me say that as a lowly lawyer... You said it, not I.

I would advise Hyatt, Yourdon and their cabal to keep quiet. You have a lot of nerve coming to OUR forum to tell us to shut up. I assume we are the ones you mean by "cabal."

...you guys predicted the end of the world as we know it. There is a broad range of opinions among those concerned about the possibility of Y2K disruptions. Very few of them fall in the TEOTWAWKI camp. The vast majority, including Yourdon thought that the most likely outcome was ten years of recession. You're evaluating their prediction two weeks into the decade.

In medieval times, Hyatt and Yordon would have been ... all over the countryside announcing the arrival of the Black Death. News flash. The plague was a real problem in those days.

...why did Anderson and Sanders uproot their families and move to Middle Tennessee? Did you ever consider that they may have moved to their bugout location? Do we know if they still own their homes in the original locations?

...why do the websites run by Franklin Sanders and Karen Anderson still list their current residences as Memphis and Texas Is it any of our business? Do you suppose these people might be too busy to remember to update every last corner of their websites? Does this really equate to "lying"?

Why were Hyatt and Anderson traveling in a car on the 2nd? Because their cars still worked? I'm not familiar with exactly what Mr. Hyatt said about cars or when he said it. Merely wondering if everyone's cars will work or if gas will be available and suggesting that folks might consider having some backup plan shouldn't consign Michael or Karen to walking if their cars do work.

on the 2nd, Hyatt was still claiming that the worst was yet to come. So? Many people still believe that even today.

did Sanders serve spam Who really cares? Probably not. I know I haven't eaten any of my SPAM yet.

...will Hyatt ever reveal all of his Y2K business interests, holdings, ventures and income for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000? What business is that of yours? Did you expect him to just carry everything that he sold and/or recommended as permanent inventory at his house, and give it away to the needy if things went south?

Hyatt ignored all the evidence that Y2K was going to be uneventful I'm quite sure that he would have, as most of us here have done, endlessly considered every available scrap of information as time allowed.

...the credible and public evidence of a safe January 1 was undeniable. Perhaps you also think that the United States Congress, the United States Navy and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers [IEEE] had ulterior motives when they arrived at their own assessments about the possibility of problems.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), January 15, 2000.

....could not have believed his dire predictions by December 1, 1999 because the credible and public evidence of a safe January 1 was undeniable.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0029an

[snip]

Thursday December 30 10:04 AM ET

FEMA Awaits the Stroke of Midnight

By BRIGITTE GREENBERG Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Hundreds of federal emergency officials have fanned out across the country and will await the stroke of midnight in each U.S. time zone Friday with an eye toward Y2K disaster.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has established 10 regional centers to monitor potential catastrophes in the United States and its territories.

[snip]

Even if a significant disaster arises that is not related to Y2K, such as an unexpected weather phenomenon, FEMA would respond, Adamcik said. However, certain emergencies - cyber terrorism, local civil disturbances, a national security emergency or long-term economic recovery - would fall under the purview of other agencies.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), January 16, 2000.

Dancr your a fucking moron you know that? WHere is your y2k huh bitch? Looks like it never happend stupid.

-- Ka-Bullshit (kA@bullshit.com), August 05, 2001.