I am observing a kind of awakening among the media and the populace at large. People are learning the truth about the extent of the Y2K computer issue, and are much less frightened than before. Many alarmist advocates have backed away from the "experts" predicting doomsday; and as several "mini-Y2K" dates have come and gone with little or no incident (certainly no noticable interruptions in basic human services), the truth about these catastrophic predictions becomes ever clear. One must applaud the courage of Peter de Jager who, after re-examining the issue, demonstrated intellectual integrity and courage by revising his position. The window of opportunity for such revision, however, is closing. In my studies of the reaction to the issue, I have collected thousands of quotes from people making fantastic and catastophic claims (in an effort begun 1 Jan 99). I plan to post these quotes on 3 Jan 00 on a website dedicated to giving pause to those who would practise fear-mongering in the future.

One sad possibility is thus: Some day we may face a real crisis; and the people who chose to cry "Wolf!" about Y2K may actually see it coming - who will ever listen to such people again? Add to that the possibility - perhaps the inevitability - that we shall one day face some moral consequence of our national or global choices, and one imagines a scenario whereby those who lost all credibility predicting catastrophic Y2K happenings are ignored when they are finally correct.

And so I marvel at the lack of a "back door" in this strategy.

I imagine people making the claim "If we had not caused such fear, the problem would not have been properly addressed" or some similar nonsense. It is reminiscent of the tactics of political regimes that history now frowns upon with utter disdain. I fear the same history awaits the doomsday claimants. The people who advocate doomsday scenarios thinly veil their predictions with phrases that suggest that they do not actually *wish* these events to occur, but that they merely *believe* they will occur. Their adamant arguments betray their Neo-Luddite motives. The snide arrogance displayed in responses to challenges wherewith they look down upon those who disagree - offering no arguments against the ever-clear facts of the matter, resorting instead to name-calling - speaks volumes.

Regards, Andy

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999

Answers

"The snide arrogance displayed in responses to challenges wherewith they look down upon those who disagree - offering no arguments against the ever-clear facts of the matter, resorting instead to name-calling - speaks volumes."

How about that, this guy even provided a self-assessment of his own dribble?

-- lol (hah@hah.hah), June 25, 1999.

Andy - 000101 is still about 6 months away, it is a bit early, perhaps by as much as 4 or 5 years to come to your conclusion re y2k severity.

Your conclusion as to people's psychological reasons for being "doomer" - Neo-Luddite - is rather generalized and more than a bit arrogant.

-- Mitchell Barnes (spanda@inreach.com), June 25, 1999.

Sorry Andy. I grow more certain each passing deadline, that the ever clear facts do not support optimism. Maybe I am a 'glass half empty' sort of person, but that suggests the ability to be left with shallow water. The 'glass half full' crowd may find themselves drowning. Eat our doomer words? Gladly. Eat your happy-face hopes? Disaster.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), June 25, 1999.

Where have you been, Andy?? "If we had not caused such fear, the problem would not have been properly addressed" is **EXACTLY** what de Jager claimed as he exited the Y2K arena. Besides, noone has listened yet, so why do you worry whether they will ever listen again?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999.

Sure do miss the REAL Andy and his informative posts. Hope your enjoying your vacation Andy.

In the meantime guess we have to put up with these TROLLSTERS. Oh well!!

Ray

-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), June 25, 1999.

Andy, your essay might make sense if 1) the entire population had responded with panic, or even with serious awareness, to the threat of widespread computer meltdown, and 2) y2k had already proven to be a non-event.

In fact NEITHER of those things have happened. I don't see panic anywhere. Quite the opposite; the majority of people are either unaware, or unconcerned.

As for y2k being a non-event.... get back to us this time next year, & we'll discuss that.

-- persistant cookie (in@my.browser), June 25, 1999.

Andy,

There are a number of unpleasant scenarios that fall somewhere in between "bump-in-the-road" and "doomsday". Don't automatically assume that not having "doomsday" means there's no reason for families to make Y2K contingency plans. There could be shortages of food, fuel and other items even if you assume power grids will be operating in the U.S.

Here's an article from March you should take a look at:

http://www.joc.com/issues/990308/p1age1/e20324.htm

[added bold emphasis mine]

[snip]

Experts warn of Y2K trade upheaval

Each nation's problem will become a global one

BY WILLIAM ROBERTS

JOURNAL OF COMMERCE STAFF

WASHINGTON -- Experts on the millennium computer bug warned Congress last week that international commerce and trade may face serious disruptions early next year because of computer failures in foreign countries.

Painting an alarming but uncertain picture, a National Intelligence Council officer and a State Department watchdog told a special Senate oversight panel on Friday that many foreign nations are not prepared.

"It is becoming increasingly clear that there will be Y2K-related problems in virtually very corner of the globe," Jacquelyn L. Williams-Bridgers, inspector general of the Department of State, told a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem.

"Faced with a relentless and unforgiving deadline, countries have to make difficult decisions concerning the use of scarce resources to fix a problem that has not yet occurred," she said.

[snip]

The international transportation sector is particularly vulnerable, she and Lawrence K. Gershwin, National Intelligence Council officer for science and technology, said. "Global linkages in telecommunications, financial systems, the manufacturing supply chain, oil supplies, trade and worldwide shipping and air transportation will virtually guarantee that Y2K problems will not be isolated to individual countries," Mr. Gershwin said.

Among the difficulties the two officials outlined:

Both the Panama and Suez canals face the risk of disrupted operations should traffic management systems or ship steering mechanisms fail. Panama officials say no ships will be allowed into the canal on Dec. 31. A Norwegian firm is working now on fixing the Suez Canal's traffic system.

China probably will experience failures in several areas, including transportation and power generation. An estimated 90% of software used in China, even by government offices and state-owned enterprises, is pirated, making it very difficult to approach vendors for fixes. China is planning to conduct a nationwide aviation test. Senior officials have been ordered to fly on New Year's Day.

Central and Eastern Europe are believed to face vulnerabilities in Soviet-designed nuclear power plants, though Western experts do not know what specific problems they may have. Many vendors of the software and equipment stopped operating after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Russia Gazprom natural gas pipeline network is susceptible to potential Y2K outages. It supplies nearly 50% of the total energy consumed by Russia. While Gazprom has backup plans, it is unclear whether these measures are sufficient to deal with the scale of problems that could occur.

Major oil-producing nations are behind in fixing their Y2K problems. Oil production and distribution is largely in the hands of multinational corporations, but the sector's use of information technology is highly intensive.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 25, 1999.

Also see this open letter from The Institute Of Electrical And Electronics Engineers, Inc. to Congress:

http://www.ieeeusa.org/FORUM/POLICY/99june09.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 25, 1999.

Andy, you remind me of the skeptics of the early Big Brothers program. You know the program. It matches up young boys with older guys--"brothers"--in an attempt to keep them out of trouble later in life. My son was one of the first "Little Brothers" and I spent some time volunteering in the program.

Critics said, well, okay, the percentage of Little Brothers getting into trouble certainly is smaller than the population at large, but that only proves the program picks the least at-risk candidates to match up with Big Brothers. Those of us working to further the program knew that wasn't true but had no way to prove it. It's very difficult to measure success in such a program.

Finally, a properly-controlled, double-blind study was performed. Guess what? The young boys in the control group with no Big Brothers had significantly more emotional and judicial problems than did the young boys with Big Brothers.

Unfortunately, we won't know if our warnings were effective in ameliorating the effects of Y2K because there is no control group--and can't be. We can't compare ourselves to, say, China--there IS no comparison.

If you stay here long enough you will find that the vast majority of doomers--only a couple of exceptions--will say they fervently hope that NOTHING HAPPENS as a result of Y2K computer problems.

You also remind me of what the IRA says about the Royal Family as targets: "We only have to be lucky once; they have to be lucky all the time." It's a similar situation with computers and Y2K: they only have to locate one weak spot--we have to locate all of them. See how that works? Nobody comments on how lucky the Royal Family is all the time, they only remark on an unlucky incident (as when the Queen's paternal uncle, Lord Mountbatten, and his nephew were blown up on a fishing boat).

We may not be remembered as being right, but I for one would be extraordinarily happy to be remembered as being totally wrong. Might you say the same?

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 25, 1999.

You have been studying this since January? Teachers never put you in a quick study program did they? Before the 60 minutes report, we had to dig pretty deep for any substantial information regarding the problems with y2k. Since the report the floodgates have opened, and information (most not good) is pouring out everywhere. A lot of information is being put forth as advice and, is the same advice being used by, the people giving it. Now that doesnt happen very often, maybe it should tell you something.

Are you so busy collecting quotes that you are not reading them?

offering no arguments against the ever-clear facts of the matter, geemaybe you can help us all out on this, what part of the ever- clear facts are we missing? Come on boy, quit running your mouth about nothing and START WITH SOME FACTS! Please hurry with this information, as I am about to go and spend more money on preps (BEEN WAITING FOR SOMEONE LIKE YOU SO I CAN GO AND BUY MY NEW 'VETTE.

By the way, you do know how people act when they are let down dont you? If you do, its not the people who are preparing you need to worry about, IT'S THE ONES IN YOUR CAMP. Ever read history?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 25, 1999.

Andy,

By the way, nobody that I'm aware of predicted that fiscal year rollovers in accounting software would cause noticeable interruptions in basic human services. The jury is still out on what will happen in January to systems that affect manufacturing and distribution.

http://www.computerpro.com/~phystad/jae.html

[snip]

The Jo Anne Effect is not expected to cause problems that will shut down corporations overnight. It is, however, expected to cause enough small difficulties to cause companies to recognize the Y2k threat and to speed up their Y2k remediation efforts.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 25, 1999.

Andy Ray,

This doesn't need to be about "Doomsday" or "catastrophic" events for it to be really really bad. Tell me, in hindsight, (since I assume you weren't there, I wasn't) was the period of 1929-1945 "doomsday" or "catastrophic"? (it certainly was for the people living in Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, etc...)

The world is on edge as it is, much as it was in the 30's, many similar forces at work. And, if Y2K turns out to be a catalyst, unleashing some of the forces that have been in check until now, won't the result be much the same?

After the Crash in '29, it took some time for the REAL Depression to kick in. It wasn't until '31 that things got really bad. This may also happen with whatever Y2K may catalyze. I believe that 3 Jan 2000 may be a bit too early to say "I told you so!"

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), June 25, 1999.

Andy Ray,

Don't let fear (yours our anyone else's) distract you from being realistic about the possible impacts of the Y2K problem. The computer systems that drive our economy and our world (and, yes, our daily lives) do not care one bit about fear-mongering or happy-face- mongering. The systems in question don't care about name-calling, posturing, optimism, or pessimism. As Cory would say, we cannot solve this very real problem and avoid its unknown consequences by "wishing really, really hard". Although, I wish we could.

By the way, if you really do know the "truth about the extent of the Y2K computer issue", please share. Of course, you can't know. No one can know with certainty at this point. People who are preparing for contingencies, however, can admit that very important fact.

-- Codejockey (codejockey99@yahoo.com), June 25, 1999.

Thanks for the IEEE link as I hadn;'t read the memo in full. No surprises there. And I agree, although it seems anti-consumer. Someone here said the scary thing is that we're depending on the same people who got us into this mess to get us out. Yes, but it IS true. If we do survive, I hope that a few particularly obnoxious elements of contemporary industry are missing--such as the messing with the environment and the food chain (i.e. genetic manipulation of food), but for better or for worse, the large structures' continuing existence will save lives. However, maybe that is not important in terms of planetary evolution. It's just my tiny frightened mind clutching at straws.

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), June 25, 1999.

Further reading:

Year 2000 International Security Dimension Project Summary, U.S. Naval War College, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, Decision Support Department, 6/9/99 UPDATE

Statement by KARLA W. CORCORAN, INSPECTOR GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION, AND TECHNOLOGY of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 23, 1999

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), June 25, 1999.

Andy Ray: hate to rain on your parade, but Gartner Group has been saying for quite some time that the real y2k crisis begin in July and will run all the way into 2001.

-- a (a@a.a), June 25, 1999.

If we look at the effects of the Great Depression from a national view, they were bad, but mostly tolerable. However, if you look on the impacts among individuals, they ranged from severe to mild, or for a few, better.

Some suffered "Grapes of Wrath" secenarios. My father remembers very little impact on his Maryland country life as a minister's son. My mother, a New Yorker, remembers eating turnips and cutting ladies cast off dresses down to children's sizes. My ex-mother in law was a transient field worker and never finished the sixth grade. Her memmories were of severe poverty.

I imagine the range of y2k impact will be similar among individuals. We live in the country. I hope that our experience is more like that of my father's than my ex-mother in-law's, but it takes a great deal of preparation to "restore" to our lives the structures, tools and practices of the country farm life of that era.

The point is, that whether it is a 1 or a 9 nationally, how we are situated to receive the impact individually will determine the reality for each of us.

-- marsh (armstrng@sisqtel.net), June 25, 1999.

Also see this transcript of a 60 Minutes segment broadcast in May:

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000sP7

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 25, 1999.

Come on now...Still waiting for all those "ever-clear" facts.

You related to Y2K Pro(?)? The two of you are always talking about these "ever-clear" facts, yet *never* produce anything. Can we get that list now, or just more of the same worthless crap you seem to specialize in?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 25, 1999.

In response to the requests for more facts, I have some questions: Why? Why attempt to offer the first bit of conclusive evidence? What difference will it possibly make in any individual who might read the information here? People on Y2K bulletin boards only take the word of post-ers who regurgitate what they want to hear. They only quote articles and links to articles with which they already agree. There is no science in what they do - it is myth and hope and dream. The rest are classified as "happy-face" reports, or some such pithy adolescence - basically calling all reports of successful testing "lies" from a treachorous conspiracy of big business and government.

The critical burden of proof is not on my side - in whatever degrading or insulting term you choose to characterize it - but lies on yours. Have any of you watched one critical system crash? Have you personally participated in the testing of anything remotely related to a mission-critical/-sensitive installation? Or are you blindly gobbling up all the hearsay, secretly wishing for the "system" to come crashing down on the heads of those who enjoy it's benefits most? Because that would surely show them, wouldn't it? And then, maybe things would be put back together the right way - in some Randian fashion or other - yes?

The truth of the matter is ever-clear. I was worried about public reactions six months ago (when I began collecting quotes), now I'm not as worried about the general population. They have wisely disregarded the hype and hysterical claims foisted upon them. My concern now is for those who are attempting to perpetuate the dying cause. In a reply, someone stated I should be worried about the people who have not prepared when disaster strikes. My observations of these situations leads me to believe that people pull together and help each other in uncertain times, so I do not worry about a largely unprepared populace in a disaster because of rational and normal human behavior.

However, when nothing really big happens at the stroke of midnight this 31 Dec, the situation will be thus: There will be a small, militant contingent of well-armed, well-stocked people coping with disillusionment as they realise that no one will ever believe a word they have to say about anything substantive again. That is the only reason for concern I can locate.

Regards, Andy

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999.

"There will be a small, militant contingent of well-armed, well- stocked people coping with disillusionment..."

disillusionment...

disillusionment???

disillusionment!!!

now you're beginning to piss me off!

Are YOU delusional by any chance, you seem to be...

OFFSKI guy, you do not have a clue...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 25, 1999.

"Have any of you watched one critical system crash? Have you personally participated in the testing of anything remotely related to a mission-critical/-sensitive installation?" Why don't you tell us about all of your experience with these first (especially the part where you were there on 1-1-00, then let me remind you to pay a little closer attention to the news, you should (IQ needs to be over 60) be able to see it for yourself.

"disillusionment" For your sake I hope its us that are doing the suffering.

You have any other hobbies? Do you have a life? How can anybody be spending there time on something only a simpleton could enjoy?

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 25, 1999.

More helpful reading:

http://www.fema.gov/y2k/ccmp.htm

"Contingency and Consequence Management Planning for Year 2000 Conversion - A Guide for State and Local Emergency Managers"

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 26, 1999.

http://www.fema.gov/library/emfdwtr.htm

[added bold emphasis mine]

[snip]

Emergency Food and Water Supplies

If an earthquake, hurricane, winter storm or other disaster ever strikes your community, you might not have access to food, water and electricity for days, or even weeks. By taking a little time now to store emergency food and water supplies, you can provide for your entire family.

This brochure was developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Community and Family Preparedness Programs which provides information to help families prepare for all types of disasters.

[snip]

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), June 26, 1999.

More artless dodging and name-calling...how typical. In debate, it is the strategy of those with the weaker postulate.

In response, thank you, LinkMeister, for your helpful links - you appear to be a thinker rather than a reactionary, which puts you in the minority on these bulletin boards. BiGG, I hope no one suffers. I was initially concerned about unneccessary public fear - now I am concerned about the mindset of those who will be so sorely disappointed when their theories and hopes prove false. The purpose of the original post was to prompt people to begin planning for a contingency they have not considered (or considered very lightly) - that of being mistaken about the nature (existence, even) of the potential for catastrophy. The rest of your post was, well, so typically flawed with respect to critical thinking that I will make no further comment. Andy, I suggest an exhaustive search of your binaries for "clue.txt" ;) And, yes, disillusionment - in just a few short months. Surely one can eat all the stored food after the non- event passes...it's all the "crow" that will have to be eaten by those who will prove to have been mistaken about the catastrophic nature of the events that is of concern.

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 26, 1999.

"Surely one can eat all the stored food after the non- event passes...it's all the "crow" that will have to be eaten by those who will prove to have been mistaken about the catastrophic nature of the events that is of concern."

Of concern to whom?

Why do you care if others are wrong in their conclusions and end up with some egg on their faces?

"I was initially concerned about unneccessary public fear - now I am concerned about the mindset of those who will be so sorely disappointed when their theories and hopes prove false."

Gee, what a caring fellow you are! How nice of you, with your all seeing, all knowing wisdom to worry about the feelings of lesser men than you.

What a guy!

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 26, 1999.

"More artless dodging and name-calling" Well lets see...who was talking about all that "ever-clear" information in there original post? You said it, now again, no squirming around this time! Let us decide how to interpret it, you furnish it.

How about you show us some of that wonderful "critical thinking" of yours? Know them people that think they are two steps ahead of everyone all the time?, well they just keep going through life never figuring out why everyone calls them an idiot! (ok I will explain it to you, you are NOT two steps ahead of anybody, putting yourself in this position tells us all we need to know about your "critical thinking") BTW do you have an "exit strategy" if you are wrong? Most of us don't have our self-esteem riding on our shirt sleeve, what are you so afraid of? something inside I suspect.

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 26, 1999.

from andy ray: The purpose of the original post was to prompt people to begin planning for a contingency they have not considered (or considered very lightly) - that of being mistaken about the nature (existence, even) of the potential for catastrophy.

if I am wrong - and I surely do hope so, my contingency plans are as follows:

1. Hold a monster garage sale around April 2001.

2. Quit shopping for groceries for quite some time after Oct 2000.

3. Retire anyway around Sept 2002.

4. Take that cruise we have been promising ourselves.

5. Continue to say my prayers nightly

justme

ps. I am more than willing to be wrong about this whole thing - are you?

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 26, 1999.

I HATE to be the one to point this out, but...If you clean up some obvious speeling errors, "Andy Ray" has a VERY familiar writing style...Similar tone, syntax, overall style as...

Anyone care to hazard a guess?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 26, 1999.

Jeez! Make that "spelling" errors.

Any guesses?

Hint: BD would know who I'm refering to in a NY minute!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), June 26, 1999.

yeeeees Bingo,

who on EARTH ccoouulldd iitt bbee,

I am really ssttuummppeedd on this one

regards [laughing]

Andy

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 26, 1999.

Raiding your local Y2K survivalist

Dear Reader,

First, forgive the sensationalist title. Explaining the underlying economics of Y2K has become rather repetitive. As I enjoy lunch, perhaps a digression into more practical matters will generate discussion.

To begin, I served in the U.S. military, active and reserve. In addition to "seeing the world," I had the opportunity to learn small unit tactics, infantry weapons and other skills well-suited for our frequent "police actions." Given this delightful experience, I thought a bit about a favorite Y2K doomsayer fantasy--survival in a post-apocalyptic America.

As we learned... repeatedly, a fixed position defense is always, always vulnerable. Most Y2K "retreats" are classic fixed positions. Aggressive patrolling provides one of the better defensive strategies, however, it requires tremendous resources and skilled personnel. Without aggressive patrolling, a fixed position can be "reconned" by the enemy for any weaknesses and attacked at one's leisure.

The "non Y2K compliant" aggressor force can scout the fixed position and select the most successful tactical options. Were I the "noncompliant" squad commander, the most effective tactic might be a pre-dawn positioning of a sniper. When the "compliant" force stirs about, preferably outside the "fortification," the sniper takes his shot.

As a side note for the survivalist set, a high-velocity, scoped rifle of reasonable quality is extremely deadly in the hands of a skilled marksman. As an experienced hunter, I try to take my shots within 250 yards, but I can routinely place rounds in a target at 400+ yards. This means even an average sniper has a reasonable chance of killing one at a quarter-mile. With a "premium" weapon and exceptional skills, this range can be extended to a half mile.

Of course, the Y2K survivalist may choose to never leave the house.

A skilled sniper will wound the first target... hoping to draw other targets into the field of fire. Unless highly trained, family members will rush to the aid of a downed target... ouch.

Of course, ambush is a favorite small unit tactic. If the "compliant" force has a patrol pattern, an ambush can easily performed. If the "compliant" force remains within the "fortification," there are multiple breaching options. By the way, all of this can be easily accomplished with off the shelf hardware. Most American structures can burn. Using Molotov cocktails or other combustibles can easily force a "compliant" force out into the open aka killing zone. Night attacks are particularly effective when attacking a fixed position.

Larger "compliant" forces can be reduced by a series of sniper attacks/ambushes. A sniper team makes a long range kill or two and then falls back to a safer position. The ambush team waits for pursuit. If no pursuit, the sniper team takes a new position and waits for targets. If pursuit, the ambush team adds to the casualty list.

Having read some "Y2K preparation" drivel, most preparations consist of buying a Mossberg 500 pump shotgun and a Ruger Mini-14 and then spending the day at the range. This is appropriate if you think marauders will ring the door like the "Avon" representative.

"Hello. We're here for your stored food and supplies."

A decent rifle squad with adequate NCO-level leadership will cut through a group of Y2K survivalists like a hot knife through butter. In fact, taking any casualties would be a serious embarrassment.

Military discipline and leadership is not something one can pick up from a book. Combat experience has a much higher price tag indeed. All in all, the odds of surviving a well-organized attack by a "noncompliant" force is slim. In fact, there are many more tactical options available to the aggressor force, but I am running out of lunch time.

To any Y2K preparedness fans... relax. I plan to spend New Year's Eve enjoying some decent wine... not leading a team of marauders in your neighborhood. I thought the article might make a nice change of pace, and I look forward to one or two frothing at the mouth replies.

Warm regards,

Click for more

-- (another@html.guy), June 26, 1999.

sigh.....

are you married? I was wondering when some bright intelligent individual would surface the issue. Can't wait to see the responses. The best option of course is to make sure that you are far far away - so folks can't find you. Even a sniper has to have at least a 6 digit grid coordinate.

justme

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 27, 1999.

"A decent rifle squad with adequate NCO-level leadership will cut through a group of Y2K survivalists like a hot knife through butter."

This method will work just as well the other way around.

Were you really in the military? Your assessment is pretty simplistic, like maybe your shooters might meet up with a force of "survivalists" they could only cry home to mama about, to start with...sounds like you been reading to many comics.

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 27, 1999.

the operative phrase there is "decent" rifle squad. There are hard to come by and certainly not found in the national guard. In order to be considered to be "decent" requires some pretty extensive training on a regular basis and some real time experience.

soooo....unless already identified and targeted, the "survivalist camps" should be relatively safe from any real threat.

of course, this is just my opinion - and I am nobody...

justme

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 27, 1999.

Good morning, everybody:

This Andy Ray (geddit? somebody irritated by both Andy and Ray who uses multiple ISPs - a different one for this personality??) smells like an amalgam of our wonderful Double D, Anita (whose reality I still very much doubt), Peg and others with a mean MF spell-checker.

Peg - who's really not the (*^%(*& some of her screen names are - is my guess, but somebody's helping her.... not CPR, possibly Doc, definitely Mutha and probably Decker.

This is a paid professional. When strategy 1 (rudeness & disruption) didn't work (and was pointed out by those cutting paychecks), tack was changed to focus on "intellectual" persusasion: hence Deck & Anita's semi-recent appearance and determination. Notice also the recent disappearance of Super Polly: the details of Koskinen's RFI have changed, and the slick "moderate" trolling MO has been implemented.

Decker and Anita and Andy Ray are on the payroll.

OutingsR, your prognosis?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

That, or this forum is unwittingly hosting those who are conducting a fabulous psychological study - one that's only happened once before and won't happen for another 1000 years.

But I'm still betting on payroll.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

And I was remiss in tying in Mild Mannered Reporter, who has posted here for quite some time. With actual comments/opinions.

MMR is Peg-scented, as well.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

And Anita is the cleverest concontion thus far.

-- Lis (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

justme,

::the operative phrase there is "decent" rifle squad. There are hard to come by and certainly not found in the national guard. In order to be considered to be "decent" requires some pretty extensive training on a regular basis and some real time experience.

Agreed. That's why I've been spending lots of time at the rifle range. If they're close enough to shoot at my house, then they're close enough for me to return fire.

Also, raiding someone's Y2K stash does NOT have the same goal as a 'traditional' attack on a fixed position. A traditional attack is meant to kill the enemy and to take the ground they are holding.

In a Y2K raid the goal is to get their stuff. It won't do you much good to burn down a house if it means burning up everything you were trying to get to in the first place. You also have to physically go into the house to get the stuff. In my house that will literally mean running straight into a hailstorm of bullets. Not a pleasant prospect for even the best trained rifle squad.

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), June 28, 1999.

Andy Ray, are you still with us?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

TECH:

LOL :)

-- justme (finalyy@home.com), June 28, 1999.

I am still with you. Business forced a few travel/meeting days, but I am happy to check in from a lovely coastline during a pleasant, albeit brief holiday.

I began this entry by refuting all the psychotic, baseless, and paranoid assumptions apparently derived from the relatively little anyone can possibly know about me; then I realised who would be reading this and the futility of such an exercise became obvious...

I have considered authoring a book on the subject, and will devote part of the remaining holiday to some study of this proposition. It could center on the over-reactions of people who were obviously misinformed and chose to act on any information that supported their claims and hopes about Y2K. The working title I have now is "ShowDown @ the Y2K Corral: a study in 'cybernoia'." What do you think?

If I do not pop in to respond every day, it is merely because this issue (and non-event) is demanding less and less of my time as the facts of the matter become ever-clear. Most of the rest of the planet is engaged in other activities, as well. And so, after the Y2K- ers are marginalised by their sensational claims, I suppose they will form some sort of social bond, and continue to meet and converse online after the non-event; predicting yet future disasters....but I should save such comments for the book...

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.