SI
SI
discoversearch

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 ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Cheeky Kid who wrote (8184)8/21/1999 10:07:00 AM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (2) of 9818
 
It's interesting how on one hand Y2K experts are deriding the interpretation of that Navy document, but also going to great lengths not to impugn Jim Lord's motivations.

However, I have quite a bit of difficulty believing that Jim, being retired Navy officer who has worked on classified projects, didn't know that this report was not classified.

Were it classified, there would be a stamp on the top and bottom of the document listing its classification level.

Jim should have realized that and fully understood that possessing non-classified information did not necessarily mean it was illegal. Certainly not that his life was in danger for possessing that data.

My wife has met Jim also, and she was quite stunned by the tone he displayed with regard to those "secret pentagon papers".

Regards,

Ron
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News