Discuss Year 2000 Issues Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Discuss Year 2000 Issues

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bill Ounce who wrote (982)	2/4/1998 10:24:00 AM
From: Bill Ounce	of 9818

comp.software.year-2000 Popular Mechanics article review submitters note: The Popular Mechanics article of interest is at: popularmechanics.com Looks like a completely clueless person wrote the article (never underestimate the cluelessness of the media). Another hypothesis is that some sort of X-files conspiracy just makes the media appear clueless :-) From: comstock@wild-life.com (Allen Comstock) Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000 Subject: Re: Crowd Control--Popular Mechanics: I'm OK Y2K Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 14:31:10 -0700 At 1:31 PM -0700 2/3/98, Rodger Whitlock wrote: \| comstock@wild-life.com (Allen Comstock) wrote: \| >Early in January a Popular Mechanics Y2K hit piece was discussed \| >briefly on CSY2000.... The calculated distortion can only be designed \| >for disinformation... \| >This is actual propaganda designed to reinforce Y2K denial... \| Popular Mechanics, with its exaggerated emphasis on, and glorification \| of, military technology and militarism in general has long been \| recognized as a propaganda vehicle intended to keep the Joe Six Pack \| shock-troop brigades in good spirit. \| I am only surprised that you are surprised. \| Rodger Whitlock Rodger, my surprise comes from the degree of blatently intentional distortion. Tactical intent implies strategic purposes. Who is issuing the orders and why? The simplest implication is that elements within the government are far more aware of the seriousness of Y2K than has been publicly asserted. The second thought is that for government awareness to have reached the level of implementing calculated propaganda, there has been governmental awareness and planning for some extended time. The third thought is "why would the government concentrate its planning efforts on population control instead of remediation?" Granted there are other easy but not necessarily more valid arguments against this line of reasoning. These thoughts do require a willing suspension of disbelief but having followed them, where do they lead? It can be argued that the government is simply working on slowing down or preventing panic reactions to the truth of Y2K. This implies a conspiracy just as much as another conclusion which is not so benign. Is our benevolent and trustworthy government responding to Y2K by pacifying us while we wait to enter the chute to the abbatoir? Or, to put it another way, is it possible Y2K has been co-opted to supplement some long-planned conservation program? Allen Comstock

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next