As some of you know, I have been on this Forum for a while - posting since last Fall and lurking for well over a year. During this time the Forum has undergone a series of changes. Actually, it seems to be constantly evolving and getting busier, and in general changing all of the time. Some posters who were around over a year ago are still here, others have gone, and there is an almost continual stream of newbies.

In short, the Forum continues to change, as does the Y2K picture. Who was it that said the only constant is change? While having discussions on other threads, I have sometimes seen posters throw in two cents about where they think the Forum is going, but don't remember one dedicated to this - hence, this thread. There are bound to be different opinions. For the sake of the discussion, I would ask that this be as flame-free as possible, and that we agree to disagree.

So the question is where do you think the Forum goes from here?

Two cents: It seems to me that we go through different alternating periods: brief relative quiet, flaming troll wars, times of intense excitement when any new and important Y2K news breaks, silly humor spells, and periods of debate about sometimes off-topic news events, even debates about if the topic is off-topic or relevant, just to name some. Every weekend and period when the kiddies are out of school finds the Forum graced with their presence, which is added to the mix. I expect continual change, including the mix of posters, and that to a large extent the Forum will evolve in relation to the news about Y2K, since that is it's main focus.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 03, 1999

Answers

Rob, Personally, I'd like to see the forum serve corporate or government insiders who are aware of show-stopping problems in their organization.

This issue needs whistle blowers. Companies and governments need to be named. The public health is at stake. The internet provides ample anonymity. There are public terminals which are untraceable. If leads were provided, there are some journalists who are willing to fight the good fight. For example, on euy2k, a Florida journalist posted to ask for specific information on the honesty of a local Florida utility's compliance claims. I presume Drew Parkhill would follow a promising lead. I assume there are others.

I think the forum already does a great job of digesting published news reports and information releases. I hope that function will stay strong.

When the anti-preparation pollys showed up I initially felt it was necessary to point out the foolishness of their position for the benefit of any truly naive newbies. Now I no longer have time to even open their posts. I'm hoping there are no newbies mislead by these unscrupulous posters.

Unfortunately, there are large numbers of Americans who do not understand that they are sovereigns. They have accepted and internalized the role of serf, and they unthinkingly let institutional consensus steer them in every aspect of their life. They cannot comprehend that they can store as much food as they damn well please. They cannot comprehend that they can take every dime out of the bank, if a preponderance of the evidence indicates that that's the best thing for their family. (I'm not advocating taking money out or leaving it in, I'm just saying that many don't understand the meaning of freedom in any aspect of their lives.)

So maybe this forum can help at least one person understand that, even if not an island, he is a sovereign.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

Rob, Personally, I'd like to see the forum serve corporate or government insiders who are aware of how compliant their organization is, but are obstructed from telling the truth by lawyers.

This issue needs whistle blowers. Companies and governments that are compliant need to be named. The public health is at stake.

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), May 03, 1999.

Shift Happens ... daily.

It appears the forum is beyond it's formative stages and now into the "terrible teens." You know ... that time of uncertainty with lots of blemishes.

I expect it to graduate sometime early summer, get even wilder for awhile, then "grow up" early fall, and keep maturing into the winter.

Remember to stop and smell the roses in your "real" life, while blooming, this spring. It also helps soften the current "scent" of Y2K unknowns.

And remember, a good garden always requires fertilizer ... uh, manure ... to grow well.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

I expect this forum will die by 1/4/2000.

-- butthead troll (troll.out.for@stroll.today), May 03, 1999.

And Diane's manu...uhhhh....fertilizer truck is bigger than most.

Odd that someone can sound so profound, but really say nothing of value. couple that with unlimited time to be top poster, and you get...?

this forum will mysteriously vanish come Jan 3-15. or become deathly quiet ...with the exception of polly laughter.... <:)=

-- (get@life.willya?), May 03, 1999.

Rob, dinncha catch my take on a new forum, please, for a new century

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), May 03, 1999.

Rob, are you stirring the waters again??

I've enjoyed watching this BB morph. Like you I've been coming here for about a year, and I used to read every post. Now I read about one post in 10 that appears on the New Answer board. Other than the fact that I simply can't keep up with the number of threads that I'd like to, I really enjoy the forum. Although the number of stupid threads has grown and will likely continue to do so, it's easy to avoid them. The number of 'off-topic' threads that I find facinating is also growing. Wish I had more time to read here!

I agree with BH, the number of interesting minds here is phenomenal, and it would be a shame to not get together anymore if Y2K leaves the web standing. (Thanks for the link, BH, I missed your thread the first time 'round). Has there been any action on that idea?

-- Tricia the Canuck (jayles@telusplanet.net), May 03, 1999.

Wrong!

Diane has provided immeasurable research for this group. She offers us a lot of research, and keeps her personal opinions (in general) to herself.

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 03, 1999.

I see that some Pollys predict the demise of this forum shortly after the rollover. This is such a strange attitude. If it wasn't for this forum, and others like it, the Polly position would totally rule. Which is to say there would be no need for forums about Y2k at all. There is no need for any information sites that basically say "There is nothing to talk about or think about regarding Y2k. Therefore this Polly site is now closing since we have no one left who disagrees with our beliefs that Y2k will be a minor event." The Pollys are here, as I see it, to try to educate/silence the last of the doubters and then we can all get on to business as usual and our bright future. Even the existing Polly sites are basically designed to calm any doubts and debunk any gloomy attitudes. They are not digging in the smelly areas at all. No interest in even considering sh-t and fans.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 03, 1999.

What's with the duplicate lines in Puddintame's and Y2K Pro's responses? Did I miss something?

-- (rick@ina.com), May 03, 1999.

Tricia: "Stirring the waters", "pushing the envelope", "shaking the tree", asking "vexing" questions, getting the "can-opener out hoping to find something other than creepy crawlies" - all of these are phrases that have come to me from various posters and I admit it is true. I post what comes to me, which is mostly questions that often do not even have an answer. I have done this from my first post. My motive has always been the same - to encourage my own and others thinking about things and try and learn something in the process. RC used to do it too, in a similar way. This is probably the biggest reason I miss RC. Sometimes I wonder what you all must have thought seeing those first posts of mine - probably something like 'just another troll'.

BH: I didn't see it until now. Like Tricia, I read only a handful of threads, especially over the last month or two. My Forum time looks even shorter going forward. Thanks for the link.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 03, 1999.

uh, rick, you missed it big time

-- read them again (read@it.again), May 03, 1999.

Just passing by in the midst of the usual ton of work :)

Puddintame,

I doubt any insiders would blow a whistle in a forum like this, for the simple reason that they would be too scared that they would be caught, alias or no alias.

Y2K Pro actually has a very good point, in that there are many companies which, as far as I can tell, are in very good shape. Yet, I don't know that all have said so publicly. This, IMHO, creates a big problem, in that many people (& in that I include gov't officials, including Koskinen, Bennett, et al) believe that when businesses, organizations, utilities, etc, won't talk, the easiest thing to do is assume the worst. And then, these same companies apparently really don't understand why there's so much worry & concern among the public (and if you think there isn't, you're crazy- more than 50% won't fly, I forget what % say they'll take money out of the banks, 22% or so of CIOs [!] say they'll stockpile, etc). If you pay attention to the actual statistics, rather than the headlines, you can see that there's a lot of worry out there. OTOH, I do expect the massive public relations campaign which is probably forthcoming later this year from banks, groceries, etc, to calm a lot of that.

In terms of this forum, it seems to me that is has deteriorated significantly, even over the past month. There's a lot more emotionalism, name-calling, etc. I think some of this is because Y2K has become an inflammatory issue by the dominance in the field, so to speak, of the heavy TEOTWAWKI types, and those who are polly or hyper- polly or whatever- those who simply can't seem to admit or realize how serious Y2K could be (especially economically, IMHO).

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 03, 1999.

Rick, y2k Pro is mocking, as usual. His implication, that compliant companies are gagged by their lawyers, is off-target. Lawyers are servants, not managers. They don't dictate anything to management. Fear of increased liability resulting from y2k may be reasonable, particularly if a company falsely claims compliance. That's what most lawyers would advise against, false or negligent claims of compliance.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

As summer progresses, we will see a large influx of JGI's( Just Got It, NOW WHAT DO I DO). We will in all probability, get a fairly large influx of other folks whose sense of humor is, mmmmm, perhaps "challenged" or "different" fits, who believe that it is neat to scare folks, or to watch the scared run scared. We will be challenged by the situation to calm the non-terminally freaked, to point them in the correct directions, and assist them in getting up to speed.

In responding to this challenge, it will be VITAL that we display the FULL RANGE of possibilities, coupled with our (properly labeled) SWAGS as to the probability of each. We will need to make a space for the folks that do not agree with the majority here present now, so that the folks who are joining us can see what the information that exists is, and so that they can make informed decisions in regards to the safety of their family and themselves.

It would be nice if we could avoid the DOOMER <===> POLLY flame wars that we seem to enjoy so much now, but I'm not sure how we will be able to do this. I hate to refer to another thread, and I hate even more to try to include the contents of about 15K+/- of another thread here, so what I'll do is do the refer thing. If you are serious about what to do and where we need to go, Click

here

And go read the thread I started about 3 months ago. There are some interesting thoughts there, and some interesting concepts we might want to try. If anyone has action items that we want to start on, we can start another "Action Items Only" thread and get started. (Spoken by the guy headed to the restroomLOL . ROFL ). Some of the organization etc may want to be done via off channel e-mail, once we come to a consensus (LOL) on actions.

Time for us to THIMK I guess.

Chuck

PS The restroom comment refers to the referred thread, about 2/3 of the waydown. Yup, devious too.

CR

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 03, 1999.

Puddintame,

While I agree that Y2K Pro was probably mocking, the actual point does remain true. And lawyers are not always the reason companies have kept silent on Y2K- although sometimes, I am told, they are. Remember, lawyers often play a big role in corporate statements.

Y2K is just too complex to be reduced to most of the arguments that occur on the forum these days, IMHO.

-- Drew Parkhill/CBN News (y2k@cbn.org), May 03, 1999.

Pudint..WRONG!!! In today's litigious society the Legal Department RUNS the PR department. NOTHING gets out that Legal has not vetted. i have heard so many conversations about making sure that Legal agrees, or running it through Legal to see if they could say thus, you might be appalled, and I'm SURE you'd be surprised.

Chuck, who drives consultants and CEO's around for a living

-- chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 03, 1999.

Hi Drew: Off-topic for this thread, but since we are both around this afternoon (an increasingly rare thing) I thought I would ask if you still intended to find a permanent home on your site for the failure lists.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 03, 1999.

Rivets in the Titanic,

The story of the Titanic, and its demise, has been used many times to warn of basic human error in planning for the future. There was one essay that I saw which looked at the Titanic in a slightly different way. It looked at what bad rivets could possibly mean to a complex system. The thrust of the question was, what would it mean if only 5% of the rivets are weak in something as large as the Titanic? If the weak rivets are spread equally throughout the entire ship, there really is no big risk or reason to be alarmed. Each bad rivet would be surrounded by many good rivets that would hold the basics together. Engineering redundancy would cover this. But what if the weak rivets were all concentrated in one structural area, below the water line? This would be quite another matter of concern. Those of us that continue to search the news for positive statements about Y2k remediation are certainly cheered by any success, however large or small. But we still wonder how many bad rivets are concentrated "below the water line?" We have a complex and critical infrastructure that we are depending on. We wonder if there are too many bad rivets in even one important area. We wonder if only one critical area could destoy the rest of the system. What about electric? What about oil supplies? What about business and finance? Try as we might, we just can't get enough assurance from the repair crews that everything is coming along just fine. And so we continue to be concerned that some important structural area, overlooked or ignored, could fail us because there were just too many bad rivets below the water line. Here we are at the beginning of May 1999, 8 more months to go, and the reports from the repair crews are comming in. "Everything in my area looks OK" says one. "There are a few problems in my area but we will get it fixed before we sail" says another. "Things don't really look too good in my area and I'm concerned it may fail" says a final one. That last report, which pops up even at this late date, is what continues to alarm us.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), May 03, 1999.

There is something worse here than Doomers vs. Pollys. It is all the politics and conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with Y2K that have really caused this place to become so factionalized.

-- just an observation (a@b.c), May 03, 1999.

Chuck, I understand your point. I agree with what you posted above. (Except the word "wrong!") I disagree with y2k pro's statement that *compliant* companies are prevented from stating so. ATT wasn't prevented from saying so. Their lawyers are as retentive as anyone's. I think (my opinion) the truth of the matter is that a lot of companies that are *not* compliant (or have no real knowledge that they are compliant) would like to say that they are compliant, but their lawyers are wisely telling them that this might open them up to punitive damages for fraud in addition to regular compensatory damages for breach of contract or warranty.

-- Puddintame (achillesg@hotmail.com), May 03, 1999.

"It would be nice if we could avoid the DOOMER POLLY flame wars"

Chuck, we should continue to point out to both sides that NO ONE can predict the future. NO ONE can say with absolute certainty that Y2k will be TEOTWAWKI or a "bump" or a "non-event."

The same "Pollytrolls" that flame a "Doomer" for their speculation regarding y2k disruptions and the resulting possible futures are equally for their speculation that no disruptions will occur as a result of y2k.

Also, for those that believe themselves "Pollys," you should consider that people hear are thinking out loud and searching for hope regardless of your calling them "Doomers."

As for what many call the "Doomers," they should try to be patient and keep cool. As of yet, our worst fears have not materialized. We do have reason to keep our hopes up. Don't be so quick to jump on a newbie who has just begun to become aware.

The bottom line is this forum can provide an excellent avenue for debate when it is done without getting tied up in personal attacks.

If you want to attack something, attack the "facts" or lack thereof.

From what I read, a few in the "Polly" crowd typically don't address any factual issues but rather they attack the person who raises them. Call them on that. Make them give their absolute factual evidence to show that Y2k will be a "bump in the road" or "no big problem."

However, if you've been following these issues and looking at the world as a whole and not just as a single business then you understand that concern and preparation and contingency planning is not just prudent it is vital on both business and personal levels.

As for me... I think the stuff will hit the fan. Things will happen. We've been warned in testimony before Congress and the Senate by professionals speaking in their own areas of experience regarding their own business or government entities. If you've been following this story for a while then you see the way the numbers are being manipulated or the spin is being put on the story. Last year there wasn't enough time to fix the problem yet suddenly "everything" will be fine? I wont place my faith in that. My wife is an insulin dependent diabetic and I wont get caught without a decent supply of medication that will have her pay the ultimate price and lose her life over this "glitch" that neither she nor I ever programmed into the system. Over and over again deadlines are being missed. Testing is NOT being done. I know where I think things are heading. I don't want nor do I desire to argue anymore about my own personal beliefs about the infinite number of possible futures. Nothing but tangible facts and evidence will change my point of view.

No one, not a "Doomer" or a "Polly", can say with absolute certainty that things will go one way or the other. Everything regarding Y2k is local including your own personal thoughts and preparations. Let's lose the labels and calm down a bit. I'd like to see posters show a little mutual respect when offering thier thoughts based on the fact that no one really knows anything, for sure.

NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

Mike =============================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), May 03, 1999.

Even though there is conflict here, this forum is still better than CSY2K. I think the extreme opinions are starting to show up. Not only that, this forum is attracting more people and therefore more opinions. Rob keep up the good work. You are contributing to the thinking mans Y2k :o)

I wonder what the new folk to Y2K must think though. We always need the fresh opinions to understand the current feel for the situation as it stands. I would like to see more on this level.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

I asked a couple months ago whether the forum could be condensed, mirrored, or otherwise managed in a more effective way.

Ed responded that the commitment of time was already at his limit, and no trusted someone has stepped forward to do the condensing, mirroring, managing. And so we all pay the price in time spent skipping over BS to get to the nuggets.

Me, I now scan the topics better and I check the names for posters I TRUST to not waste my time. But I read the trolls when I'm in a frivolous time-wasting mood, and I find that many of you HAVE DONE THE SAME. (The forum serves ALL of our y2k needs, including the frivolous?)

The problem is the GLUT -- it is real. Again, if anyone (like you, Rob) wants to PARALLEL this forum -- even by beginning threads containing "the best of" what you've found here that day -- I'll look for YOUR NAME and read it.

"YOURDON'S DIGEST" ????

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), May 03, 1999.

jor-el I have been working on a Preparation Archive. It needs to be updated but check it out.

Year 2000 Preparation Archive

Choose the category you are interested in and press Enter. The link will appear in a new page. Close window to return.

Category	Year 2000 Preparation ArchivePersonal ConsiderationsPreparationFamilyHome FoodFood Storage and PreservingGrowing FoodFood - Cooking< option>ClotheswaterSanitationHealth LightingHeatFuelAlternate powerMoney and Y2KCommunity PreparationRural LivingUrban LivingBugging outSecurity and gunsHam Radio - CommunicationsBooksLeadershipAnimals

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

brian,you have no idea how grateful I am for your archives....alot of my basic questions were answered there,I have copies of everything...I wish Mr.Yourdon would at least list your archives on his home page,it would save a lot of new people a headache trying to find things out...theres not an awful lot of patience for the new people sometimes,it would at least give them a basis for whats generally going on,before they jump over to the Forum,and get hopelessly lost...anyway,you've helped me,just wanted to say thanks,hope you can keep it up...Cynthia

-- Cynthia Yanicko (yanicko@infonline.net), May 03, 1999.

Cynthia

Thank you so much for your kind words and yes I hope to keep it up. Just keeping up to Old Git is a trial **VBG**

Best of luck!

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

Brian: Terrific job! It must have been a lot of hard work - you must know that it was worth your time. Thank you so much.

I went through some of the archives and have a couple of "candidate" threads for you to consider adding, if you think they will be of help to folks. The first, for the Family category, is called "Our Children and Y2K" and the link is http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000jRE

The second, for the Health category, is called "Y2K Preparation and Physical Fitness" and the link is

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000WmG

I don't know if you have added it yet, or intended to, but another thread is that great essay from Bonnie Camp called "Stocking just one week's supplies. Balderdash! A story from the perspective of experience. (Long)" - this thread is active now.

Once again, Great Job. I too would like to see your archives listed. Any chance of this?

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 03, 1999.

Rob,

I love your posts, and your "vexing questions." Just wish I had more time and energy to get into the "posting game". Keep up the good work, and know that many of us "mostly lurkers" really appreciate it.

Wishing for more time to "engage in the discussion."

Merlin.

-- Merlin Emery (MerlinEmery@yahoo.com), May 03, 1999.

Rob

Thanks! And it is not that hard :o) I just have to keep up with the
forum. The links you suggested will be in the next download in a day or
two. And yes Bonnie Camp's excellent post will be on top of the "preparation" in the  archive. As far as listing them, that would depend on the web masters on different Y2K sites. As a relative new comer to the forum it has taken awhile to get used to the posters on this board. WOW is there allot of folks! It seemed to me to be a great loss to have the post go into some kind of atomic warehouse to gather dust. These forums are actually very versatile so it was not to much of a learning curve to create the Archive. Now everyone can have a reference for common prep info. I would like to see the Archive widely available but don't see it as something I should do as a "newbie' to the forum.  I would value any opinions that the regulars would have and the websites they operate should have it listed. Maybe a thread on discussing the idea would be  in order. Plus a Email to Ed Yourdon to get a link to his site.

A couple of ideas..

 One interesting thing is that the previous posts can become active in the "New Answers" So if anyone sees a post and would like it to be current try posting on it and a rebirth can happen to the topic.

Having a special guest thread and invite any of the notable Y2K folk for an evening of Q&A.

The little archive form can be cut and pasted by anyone.

To fit the archive onto this forum (at least a link on top) would be up to Ed and Phil. This would be a neat idea for those folk that are new to the Y2K issue.

It would be easy to spin off forums from this one so OT topics, and possible other ideas such as a family y2k prep forum directed towards young families and single mothers. If anyone wants a forum created with some tricks I will help.

We could have an Archive of some of the better threads even if they are not Prep. oriented. I actually like the "gear heads' talking about their mainframe experiences. That and a tech Archive may be handy.

Y2K is a historic event even before it happens and the forum folk, doomers, pollys and trolls are part of the bigger picture. We are each a breath of wind in the storm of life and the influence extends beyond each of our keyboards. Chaotic events and all that you know.

Time is getting shorter till the turn over. How well prepared can folk get in the time remaining.

Good luck folks

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 03, 1999.

Merlin: Thanks for the kind words, especially since I never hear from lurkers, and seldom from 'mostly lurkers' - it does mean a lot to me.

p.s. We aren't the only ones wishing for more time, now are we - how many days to go? Less than 250 now isn't it.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 03, 1999.

Brian: So, all you have to do is "just keep up with the Forum', huh? :) LOL. You're a better man than I, Brian. I gave up a while ago with trying to keep up. It is true what you say about an archived thread getting new life - sometimes I get online and see an old thread active and it is a cool feeling to know that people still find it interesting and are contributing something new.

Also, Ed is very kind and thoughtful - if you haven't tried an e-mail to him, consider this some encouragement to do so - you certainly have some good ideas and have already made one heck of a contribution.

Last, you wrote "Y2K is a historic event even before it happens---" Hmmm - It's kind of late at night now so I'll consider this tomorrow.

-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), May 03, 1999.

Rob

It is interesting looking back on the old posts to the forum (like last summer) and the differance in information posted. Possibly we can learn from what has been posted before and where we may be going to. Seems back then there was a bigger interest in bugging out than today. Now that does not seem to be the case. Maybe because the posters have gone and left their old lifes? It would be interesting to follow up on those that had the plans to do this.

I will try contacting Ed and see what he thinks in the near future.

-- Brian (imager@ampsc.com), May 04, 1999.

RE: Y2kPro's sardonic post. In certain areas he has a very good point, though that's probably not what his intentions were.

In the area of banking, which most people consider the third leg of the stool, banks are not allowed to announce their govt. determined Y2K status, so all you get is bland non-specific oatmeal mush type PR flak. Why? The brains in foggy bottem don't want any banks to have competitive advantage. Now I can see that they prefer to keep Y2K below joe 6pack's radar, they want to avoid lawsuits agrueing what level of preparedness, and I'm sure that political contributions from laggard banks has something to do with this, just as badly run S&Ls in the early 1980's were usually the heavy hitters in the PAC and party contributions and were given the most slack by the FSLIC.

Now banking is a mess as far as Y2K goes. You've got small little banks that probably don't have the in-house expertise on one end and the huge banks with a gazillion lines of code at the other. However, they both share the problem of really poor ratios.

If anybody here wants a really quick education on banking and doesn't want to wade through Rose and Milton Friedman's A Monetary History of the United States, reading John Holt's books from 1975-1985 will do the job. IF you look at the ratios that Holt considers critical to a society and banking industry, we've been running the engine right near the red line for about 15 years. Ie., there is no slack, no cushion, no give. My father in law is a contractor and he likes to point out that if you jump up and down on a floor and it moves, that's great, if it doesn't move that means that it is stressed so much it has no give. The banks' lack of wiggle room is analogous to just in time inventory only worse.

Granted several institutions have been shut down, one would love to be a fly on the wall and discover the selection process of that, most likely as politically dirty as the assisted S&L takeovers of the 1980's. However, given the govt's track record on deadlines I'll bet dollars to doughnuts(which used to be long odds, not 2:1) that many banks will not make Y2K smoothly. They will most likely fail when despositors catch on. It need not be a panic run on them, just writing checks on existing accounts without making new deposits.

My long winded point is this, this clamp down on facts will cause exactly what the regulators want to avoid. By not giving out the government rankings of banks, that will frighten people, ie., what are they hiding. This is particularily true considering the lack of honesty of this particular administration. Therefore people that might have been lulled and statisfied by a govt. report card will trust NO banks, no even the good ones. After all, how many people are going to plunk down money and purchase the Weiss Reports. How many people even know who Weiss is!?!? It's going to be a mess.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), May 05, 1999.