If anyone still does not believe that TB 2000 was STEERED, reading the following thread will show you how it was done. At the end, you get the two Deleters dead ending the conversation. Of course by that time, few if any of the YourToastedITES believed Jim Lord. After the initial flurry, when it was clear that Lord had grossly overstated the case for what was a page from a public web site, few if any of the Doomers even mentioned the "Navy Papers" to support the sinking Y2k FUD ship. This thread tells you that even in the beginning for the Lord SCAM, few believed him anymore. So...what did the STEERERS DO...they sort of "let it die" as you will see.

LINK

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001HGi -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis -- Thanks for your kind references to me, too kind in this respect. I've beeen slopping around in all this myself, anger included. I differ from you slightly in that this board does a good job (this isn't the first time) getting down in the muck and, IN THE END, trying to understand the actual truth of a situation. WITNESS THIS POST, among others. I include the pollies as well as the doomers. Coming to facts about Y2K in the midst of the intense fog doesn't occur instantaneously and it is going to get amazingly more confusing before it gets better. I am thankful that my worst fear about the Navy report, that it transmitted HARD data known to the military and the White House but not shared, proved untrue. Net net, the sheer lack of data (not to mention self-reported data shared) about the iron triangle worldwide is amply scary enough, as we have all long realized. As Robert Cook pointed out on another thread, when you get back 17% of other small percentages of self-reported progress from entities that should be saying cheerfully in 95% numbers that they are done, tested and even testing their contingency plans, you ain't looking at good news. And, to come back full circle to the Navy report, even Koskinen used the words "overly cautious" rather than "wrong" about their speculation. Not exactly encouraging -- it still boils down to how cautious the Navy ... and ourselves ... want to be as rollover approaches. -- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 21, 1999. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lewis: My only regret is that I did not meet with you at the Community Conversations in Hartford, CT (a toasted city). Today 08/21/1999 on CNN "The Navy Report [on y2k] now coincides with the Federal Government's". [no big problem]. To reply: remove nospam -- Steve King (parse@earthlink.nospam.net), August 21, 1999. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BigDog, "Coming to facts about Y2K in the midst of the intense fog doesn't occur instantaneously and it is going to get amazingly more confusing before it gets better." There is a "home truth" that just smacks ya in the gut. Lewis, later, I have some more to say, but... it's time to take a break and play today. Later. Diane -- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 21, 1999.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 11, 2000

Answers

magnanimity,where'd it all go?

-- just wonderin' (....@....), July 11, 2000.

B-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-R-R-R-R-I-N-G !

THIS INFORMATION IS OUTDATED, ALMOST ONE YEAR OLD. DID YOU GO THROUGH SOME KIND OF TIME WARP?

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 11, 2000.

off

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 11, 2000.

I WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK SOMEONE FROM FIXING THEIR CAR WHEN IT IS BROKEN. WHY SHOULD I DEBUNK Y2K? GET A CLUE, IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED, AND IT WAS FIXED. THANK GOD THE FIXERS DIDN'T LISTEN TO FOOLS LIKE YOU. YIPEEEE, HOORAH, HOORAH!

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 11, 2000.

I WISH YOU WOULD QUIT FUCKING UP THE HTML, THAT TEXT IS WAY TOO SMALL FOR A SIMPLETON LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND...

I WOULD NOT ATTEMPT TO DEBUNK SOMEONE FROM FIXING THEIR CAR WHEN IT IS BROKEN. WHY SHOULD I DEBUNK Y2K? GET A CLUE, IT NEEDED TO BE FIXED, AND IT WAS FIXED. THANK GOD THE FIXERS DIDN'T LISTEN TO FOOLS LIKE YOU. YIPEEEE, HOORAH, HOORAH!

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 11, 2000.

hi.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 11, 2000.

There were many, many threads about Jim Lord and the Navy's report that were started on the old forum. They can all be found here, with the oldest ones at the bottom of that page and the newer ones closer to the top of the page.

I particularly recommend the following two threads....

Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis-- Coalition 2000)

Lord's Y2K Pentagon Papers confirmed in Washington Post; Koskinen singing a different tune

-- (the@Navy.threads), July 12, 2000.

There was never a reason to prepare for a catastrophic Y2k.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.

big text for a little man

-- (lil@text.lady), July 12, 2000.

LOL! IT LOOKS LIKE ANDY RAY IS TOYING WITH THE IDEA OF MOVING UP TO THE WILD WILD WORLD OF BIG TEXT. APPARENTLY HE IS CONCERNED THAT HIS MESSAGE ISN'T GETTING THROUGH. UNFORTUNATELY THAT PUNY LITTLE TEAL FONT DWARFS IN COMPARISON TO MY HUMONGOUSNESS. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT AR, BUT I THINK PEOPLE ARE JUST PLAIN TIRED OF YOUR QUOTABLY QUOTEDS.

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 12, 2000.

I'm not.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 12, 2000.