Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : The Y2K Newspaper -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (55)	8/22/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 198

I find it very STRANGE that doomers didn't respond to this Y2K experts comments on those docs: The Y2K Pentagon Papers - A Clarification August 20, 1999 by Peter de Jager year2000.com SNIP: >>There is more to the story. When I received the document for the first time. Three scenarios immediately went through my mind. 1.The document was real and freely available. 2.The document was real and top secret. 3.The document was a hoax. As we've seen. It turns out #1 was the truth. Scenario #2 was never a possibility, because there is no evidence to support the stated conclusions. Scenario #3 posed the bigger concern. It would take nothing more than about an hour of effort to create a disaster 'document' and then promote it on the Internet as a 'leaked top secret file,' etc., linked to a conspiracy, etc., and a new world order, etc., and plans for martial law, etc. (You get the general idea.) And since there is no way for myself or anyone else to prove that the document does not exist in any government file, the conspiracy theorists would have a field day. It's not my intent to provide any malicious fool with ideas, but it's something we all have to take into account when encountering information from any source. How can you check the validity of the data? If anyone has an answer to that question, don't keep the answer to yourself. My personal strategy is to be skeptical of everything I hear. My response these days to any claim is simply 'prove it,' or if that is not always possible, then provide me the argument and reasoning you used to come to your conclusions. That's not fool proof, but it's better than taking whatever you hear at face value. Imagine what you would be doing today if you took 'The Pentagon Papers' and the manner in which it is presented, at face value? <<

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (55)	8/22/1999 8:31:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 198

pioneerplanet.com Doomsayer pushes year 2000 panic button by using out-of-date data

To: C.K. Houston who wrote (55)	8/23/1999 5:04:00 PM
From: C.K. Houston	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 198

Dept Of Defense: FACE Y2K ON YOUR OWN Federal Computer Week -August 23, 1999 The Defense Department, expected to be the federal agency to respond to potential crises brought about by the Year 2000 problem, this month said it does not plan to react to all requests for help from state and local civilian authorities. DOD adopted the position in an Aug. 12 message sent to all the military services by the Army's Director of Military Support (DOMS) in the Pentagon ... The DOMS message goes even further, making it clear that even if civilian authorities ask for help, they may not receive it. "It should be anticipated and publicized that not all requests from civil authorities will be filled," according to the message. The Pentagon, according to the message, also has tightened disclosure of its vast supply of resources, which includes food, engineering equipment, generators and water purification plants, that could help cities and counties that may be afflicted with Year 2000 snafus. "Any request for inventory levels of DOD resources from non-DOD activities will be denied," the DOMS message said ... NAVY'S PLANS The Navy, in its Year 2000 contingency planning and consequence management plan released this month, made it clear that it planned to centrally manage requests for help from communities outside its bases. The Federal Emergency Management Agency "will coordinate with [DOD] to prioritize such needs, and [DOMS] will task specific services to respond as required," the Navy plan said. Local commanders can only engage in "unilateral emergency actions that involve the saving of lives, prevent great human suffering or mitigate great property damage, only when time does not permit approval by higher authorities," according to the Navy contingency plan. Pentagon officials could not be reached for comment ... fcw.com SPEAKING OF "CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT" NORFOLK, Va. [May 12, 1999] -- The Defense Department must be careful to prepare for possible Year 2000 problems while not alarming the public, a top Navy official said. DOD commands worldwide must take prudent steps to ensure that Year 2000 computer date bugs in critical infrastructure systems -- electricity and telephones, for example -- do not cripple operations, according to David Wennergren, deputy chief information officer of the Navy. But Wennergren, speaking here at the service's semiannual Connecting Technology conference, added that preparing for possible interruptions -- what he called "consequence management" -- needs to be balanced with preventing public distrust and worry -- what he called "perception management." For example, as part of its Year 2000 consequence management efforts, Wennergren said a Navy base might bring in water tankers shortly before year's end to ensure that the base's water supply is not interrupted if computers fail. But perception management would dictate against such a move "because people outside [the base] would want to do the same thing," Wennergren said. fcw.com