<<sorry techo and Ron...you are flat wrong -- Ken is right>>>
<<<I have no idea about Columbus, so I can't speak on that, but the "bunker" you refer to in LA ALREADY exists and was constructed for an emergency command post. It was not built specifically for Y2K related disaster.
...To make a point, I will answer a couple of his. This individual is trying to quibble, obviously, to try for a FIRST-EVER DEBATE WIN WITH ME, however done 3rd person. Let him prove his above statements re: the LA center.
<<As for the "bunker" near the White House, I drive by there almost everyday, and I'm not seeing a whole lot of construction equipment of the type necessary to excavate and remove large quantities of dirt and concrete.
....the defense contractor did not specify when this 'bunker' was built, or if it was even started yet. His reference was, as I recall, they were "being built"....
<<Now there is a coordination center being prepared as Koskinen recently announced, but it is HARDLY a bunker.
....Let's not also quibble about the word 'bunker', as one of his chosen focuses of his desired debate, actually, as a 'right-wrong' match. The word is not the point-the point is a safe shelter for govt purposes for y2k disruptions. I will continue to use the word 'bunker' for convenience purposes.
.
<<How do I know this? Because a friend of mine was bemoaning the fact their New Year's eve celebration will be spent in this command post watching the fireworks celebration on the Washington Mall.
This person has mentioned NOTHING about being buried underground behind multiple steel plate doors and cypher locks.
......I have no information as to the physical layout...the defence contractor was necessarily vague on certain specifics, as would be logical---this 'person' thinks a defence contractor should spill all the beans on any security-releated situition, just for this 'person's own personal knowledge, just in case he butted into someone else's discussions in the future <vbg> apparently.
Who is this friend he is talking about, and who cares anyway?
<<So who should I believe??
.....Who cares? No one asked this 'person' for his opinion or feedback. My post was directed to someone else, NOT TO this 'person' for his debating or fault-finding, permanent argumentative obsession, or his opinion, or his beliefs!!
Maybe the only way to get this 'person' off my back, finally, is to repeat what Rarebird was forced to say several days ago, having the same problem with him..."LEAVE ME ALONE"!!!!
<<Someone who thinks this whole thread exists for the purpose of playing practical jokes or the person I know who will be in the "belly of the beast" over Jan 1st??
.....This 'person', by this statement, has decided to again say soemthing,anything, nor matter how ridiculous or inane, to AGAIN, try to provoke me (after a calm peace was reached), due to his ongoing OBSESSION for
'getting back' me for losing in ALL of our previous y2k debates!
This 'person' refuses to keep his problems with me, i.e., his past losses, off of this thread!
These posts are evidence for SI Bob, that this is STILL ANOTHER CASE in which I have carefully AVOIDED ANY MENTION OF THIS 'PERSON', but in spite of that, AGAIN, HE IS TRYING TO START UP ANOTHER WAR!
Plus, he was obviously VERY unhappy to see Jeff say I was right and he was wrong! He can not deal with that fact in the least! Obviously!
<Lemmee see.... Hmmmm... Boy 'o boy tough choice.
...Who cares what his choice is? I, nor anyone else asked for it!
<<And since I just had a internet chat with this person as I was typing this response (just to make sure I didn't get anything incorrect), I'm DOUBLY sure...
My friends words (paraphrasing)... Bunkers wouldn't even be considered by Koskinen since it was send such an obvious "fear" message that it could never be considered.
......Who cares about what his (unnamed) friend says! Who believes what Koswillkillem, the political hack hired for and charged with White House pr, to put the right spin on everything the govt deems appropriate for force-feeding to the masses.
AFter whatever disruptions occur, he is out of a job, however, he is nicely set up to be one of the 'fall guys' depending on how bad it goes.
Further, does this 'person' think that if Kosky retreats into a 'bunker', that it would be with cameras and fanfare, or couldn't he just quietly slip into one? Incredible!!! This is a VERY illogical AND IRRELEVANT statement to make to try to disprove what the defense contractor said.
Additonally, by that time, Jan 1 or whenever, he will be relegated to unimportance in the scheme of things, in any case. No one on Jan 2 will give any more of a damn whether he is in a bunker or whether Garvey kept her promise to go fly-fly on an aeroplane on Jan 1. His arguement here is irrelevant.
In any case, the defense contractor made NO mention of a bunker for Kosky, or any specific person! It defies my imagination that this 'person' constantly hallucinates other totally unrelated things to add in, in his desperation to try to make points in front of an audience!
<<HOWEVER... every major govt agency as well as most private corporations will be operating "watch centers" in order to quickly identify problems and immediately work to mitigate any damage or disruptions.
.......Of course! This follows the statement by the defence contractor
This is arguing for his statements.
<<My friend, while we're cracking bottles of Champagne, will be relegated to sitting by a phone working as a representative from their particular agency.
Btw, please note how I kept references to my friend gender neutral.
<<Now you don't have to believe me and I really don't care. But I'm just putting the information out there so I can sleep with a clear conscience knowing that I didn't let this conspiratorial BS go unanswered.
.....Exactly !The defense contractor could care less than 0, both about his statements or if he cares if he is believed!!! I doubt anyone else cares any more about whether this 'person' believes what he said!!
......'Clear conscience'? What the he## does that have to do with anything? He was ignorant of the facts Jeff just confirmed- he knows less than less about a lot of things! And, further, his only intent here was to again cause disruption of this thread by intentionally trying to antagonize and provoke me by saying I am conjuring up 'consipiratorial bs', relating to very-well known facts, as Jeff pointed out, known by many, but himself excluded.
This 'person' should address his idiotic statements about his conspiracy bs to the defense contractor- accuse the source of creating a conspiracy!
Perhaps, if this 'person' spent more time reading up on more y2k reports, even mainstream ones like this one, and less time throwing darts at my photos, and conjuring up ways to provoke me, day after day, he wouldn't have shown his ignorance of these reports and wasted peoples'time here.
<<Regards,
Ron
|
