Koskinen's "Take" On Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers (Steve Davis--Coalition 2000))

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This just in...

Subject: [civicprep] Navy Assessments
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 15:13:42 -0400
From: "Steve Davis" steve@davislogic.com
To: "civicprep" civicprep@4hlists.org

>From the Civic Preparedness discussion list. To post messages to this list, address them to civicprep@4hlists.org.

I have gotten to what I think is the bottom of this issue. This information comes directly from John Koskinen.

In summary: The Navy report referenced by Mr. Lord was on a web site publicly available until a few weeks ago (not just to people passing along "secret government documents"). The report reflected an attempt by the armed services to begin to collect assessment information about infrastructures in the areas in which we have bases. Like everyone else, the services were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell them anything.

The ratings were based on anecdotal information that was updated over time and do not reflect "the official government assessment of any kind. Most significantly, which Jim does not note and may not have known (although he made no inquiries that John knows of ) the instructions were to put a "3" (risk of failure) as the default if information was not available. Earlier this year when base commanders and others were trying to determine the status of local infrastructures here and around the world there wasn't much information available, which is why there were so many "3"s.

The lack of local information was one of the reasons the White House launched the "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the communities conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

Third, the people the leadership at DoD and the services care most about are their troops and the advice sent to them by the Secretary of the Navy -- which is anything but alarmist -- reflects the low level of risks from Y2K as seen by the department leadership. (But they did recommend personal preparedness and continue to do so.)

John and I both agree that, as we move through the fall, we will have more than enough interesting and important matters to pursue. In other words, we won't need to be making mountains out of molehills to keep things interesting.

The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories.

Best wishes, Steve

(Please feel free to send this to anyone who may have gotten the earlier messages)

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999


Some Thread discussions...

The Pentagon Papers of Y2k

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GWN

You Can't handle The Truth

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GXQ

Taking up Lord's challenge

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gbo

Well if Jim Lord is to be believed, this should just about do it for ths polys

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GZ1

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.


Now you need to decide if you think Koskinen would tell you (or Steve Davis) the "Y2K Truth" or not.

And to be fair... he may tell what he knows... but is the dot mil group telling him?

Questions... questions.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.


Interesting...so the document is genuine, if "outdated." Then why should it bear a June 1999 date? Well, lotsa progress in the last 8-10 weeks!

Also, what Web site was open to the public until a few weeks ago...why was it closed to the public. Just WHAT discussions are taking place there now??

Also, does anyone seriously believe that when the DoD inquires of a utility they will be stonewalled?? This raises more questions than it answers

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), August 19, 1999.


Does this boil down to taking the word of Jim Lord vs that of John Koskinen?

This is all a big misunderstanding?

NO ONE, in the last 6 months, in an intensely researched field, has managed to stumble across this public web site? No one, who knew about it (producing it) was concerned enough to make it known?

No where, on this public website, did it explain about the default choice?

Folks, pay NO attention to the man behind the curtain. No, no, no, ignore him, I am the TRUE source of information.

Trust us, we are from the government. We are here to help you.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 19, 1999.

The lack of local information was one of the reasons the White House launched the "Community Conversations" initiative in May and why DoD has a related initiative they have asked all their base commanders to lead in their local communities, either by supporting the communities conversation or helping to organize one in the absence of any other facilitators.

Crap. The "Community Conversations" are preventing the populace from comprehending the situation, not vice-versa. Crap.

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), August 19, 1999.

Does Koskinen every give a direct answer to a direct question? What would make him change his M.O. now?

In contrast, based upon Mr. Lord's past work, I know he talks straight and works hard at being objective. With all due respect to Mr. K., I can't say the same about him. Especially in light of the comments he made overseas that seemed to be very different that what he is saying here.

Even if half of what is in these papers is correct, I feel uncomfortable.



-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

My vote goes to Jim Lord and phooey with the " ko-skin-em alive" disinformation machines explanation of the document. Fear God, not Y2K. Fear God, not man.

-- potent (potent308@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

The report provides three categories of failures. Wouldn't only one of them be a default?

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Wouldn't only one of them be a default?

When you have to quickly invent a cover story, it tends to have some flaws.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

I'd open my mouth to respond to skinem's lackey's response, but I'm so deep in bullsh** that I might suffocate in the process.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), August 19, 1999.

Yeah right.

Koskinen says...This was stuff from a public website which unfortunately, doesn't exist anymore, so we can't prove a thing. It's our word against Lord's. He's just a regular citizen but dang! I'm the Y2K czar!

You believe me , don't you?

-- eubie (kosky'squick@newstories.com), August 19, 1999.

My ponderings....

1. Why is John Koskinen responding, instead of the military.

2. Is John/The Navy saying that all the 'feel good' answers we were receiving from NERC and the rest of the utilities earlier this year was so useless that it represented a lack of 'default information'?

I'm not saying that this report is valid or invalid or that John/The Navy's response is a coverup - that's for others to say.

It all makes me wonder, though, and this information will be dovetailed in with the countless thousands of other skeptical/bizarre bits of information that has graced these eyes and grey matter. IOW - it's important, but not necessarily earth shattering.

-- Thinking Aloud (hmmm@hmmm.com), August 19, 1999.

The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories.

Just out of curiosity would "John" mind telling us just what percentage of these reports is accurate or is he protecting us from ourselves?

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), August 19, 1999.

What qualifies Steve Davis to tell any of us what John Koskinen says or believes?Why doesn't Mr. Koskinen speak to us himself?It is his job is it not?

-- Desertj98 (jturner@ptway.com), August 19, 1999.

"Interesting...so the document is genuine, if "outdated." Then why should it bear a June 1999 date? Well, lotsa progress in the last 8-10 weeks! "

And when was the data collected for this report that was realesed in June? I'm sure it was only a day old;)

Not saying that everything is fixed, but the information is older than 8 - 10 weeks at this point.

-- b (b@b.b), August 19, 1999.

Well, one thing you CAN say is Koskinen "confirmed" the information's existence. That's something! And it substiantiates Jim Lord's claims.


If your answer is... "No one knows..." well, I suggest you just prepare. Bottom line.


See also...


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gbh

Anyone got .mil access? Please try to get into this site

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GeH

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.


"What qualifies Steve Davis to tell any of us what John Koskinen says or believes? Why doesn't Mr. Koskinen speak to us himself?It is his job is it not?"

Because Steve, as a Y2K Community Activist, knows Koskinen directly, and when this report went around, he asked John for all of us.

Many of us can "confirm" that Steve has access to Koskinen.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Look , out here in the desert we have no Navy bases. None of the Central Arizona cities appear in that list...but I could have written the data for those categories based on congressional hearings (TESTIMONY,not spin). We will have Electricity, and will be suppling neighbouring states. Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, now the largest in the World, is FULLY compliant. I don't know about Gas, but if they have power, it's a good guess that gas will be on line.

Water and Sewer are toast and plans to finish in December are "FANTASYLAND" in the words of Senator Dodd. Could it be that water and sewer are the real Embedded Systems story in Y2K?? I thought we were the exception, but maybe not!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), August 19, 1999.

Steve, I know your out there, can you give us the URL of the website that was public up to a few weeks ago????

Question #2, was this a classified document??

Your expeditious response will be appreciated.


-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Won't be making mountains out of molehills, huh? Seems like what the paper was talking about were "black holes" not mole hills. And isn't it interesting that when they didn't quite know the true status of an organization or business they put down a 3, meaning risk of failure. But when they don't know the full status of their own sytems, they put down "ready". Anyway, it looks like Koskinen has validated the paper and even noted that it is now no longer available. But since it was public information for a short while, Jim Lord should be safe. Bet Koskinen is shaking his head over this one. He has said more than once that the Internet is a lightning fast information system. Any postings go world wide in a flash. Course most of the public doesn't bother with the Internet, and the media would never publish something like this, so I guess the secret is safe. Who's going to believe us Internet Crazy Junkies?

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), August 19, 1999.


"Crap. The "Community Conversations" are preventing the populace from comprehending the situation, not vice-versa. Crap."

Good catch, there. I'm afraid I'll take rumour over official denial almost any day, the way things are going.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), August 19, 1999.

I agree Jon.

This explanation is classic Klinton administration BS.

Hey b,

If you were the Feds' Y2K czar, wouldn't you produce your own current table and show how many of the "defaults" were now "Y2K-OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?"

What? You don't have your own table? How do you know the information is outdated then?

I'm sorry, b, Kosky has now crossed the line for me into actually discouraging preparedness. There no longer appears to be absence of malice.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

"If you were the Feds' Y2K czar, wouldn't you produce your own current table and show how many of the "defaults" were now "Y2K-OK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?"

What? You don't have your own table? How do you know the information is outdated then? "

You missed the point. This info has GOT to be older than 8 - 10 weeks is aall I am saying. I have never seen a goverment report that didn't take at least a mont (although 3 seems to be the average) to put together.

-- b (b@b.b), August 19, 1999.

Just remembered something about water and sewer...some time ago, someone posted to this forum that he had consulted with 50 municipalities and the one consistent pattern was noncompliance in Traffic, Water and Sewer systems. I didn't know how to evaluate it but I do NOW. By the way, it really hits home seeing it in a government document

Infomagic's Devolutionary Spiral of diminished carrying capacity was hard for me to come to grips with but I gotta tellya...Cholera, Hepetitis A, B, &C, perhaps even POLIO. It could REALLY clean out a city like New York in a VERY short period of time!

-- K. Stevens (kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), August 19, 1999.

No b,

You missed the point!

Regardless of the date of the information which has now been disseminated across the world, if you had better-read more updated and accurate- information, wouldn't you disseminate it as widely as possible and quickly?

Of course you would. That leaves two possible conclusions:

1. Kosky doesn't know either.

2. The situation is not much better than the not-so-up-to-date report that's already out there.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Ow, ow, ow! My ears were burning!

So here I am and here is what I had to say to one of my critics on the civicprep list. Enjoy!

Let me first say that I take Y2K as seriously as the next person - I would not be taking the time to do all of this preparedness stuff if I was not concerned. I am equally concerned about the quality of information used to make our risk assessments. The internet is a powerful tool to share information and it can be easily used and abused. Case in point, the Navy assessment that came with this note:


This is not what this "information" was at all. How do you think people who read this type of stuff will react? Is this not fear mongering? Is it responsible to share it? Won't it make us look like the National Inquirer?

I feel an overwhelming responsibility to make sure that only the best and most credible information gets wide distribution. I know all the arguments about share it all and let people figure it out for themselves - I don't buy them. Few people will take the time that we do to ponder these weighty issues. We owe the public only our best understanding of these issues.

I met Jim a year ago in Boulder and found him to be a rather nice chap who is intent on selling his books. I am also a commentator and I also have a book to sell so we are on equal footing - but with clearly different opinions and modes of operation. I don't doubt that Jim believes what he says. That is all I am going to say about Jim.

Now about John Koskinen. I have had far more interaction and disagreement with John than with Jim. We have not always agreed on things but I know him to be a credible and trustworthy source of information. While recent and past Washington embarrassments make it hard to think that you can count on the government to give you the truth, I trust John totally as a source of information and I know that he has far better connections than any of us.

Having worked with many governments and contingency planners over the past several years I see John's information as a very plausible explanation and a logical part of the navy contingency planning process. I am surprised that such a potentially volatile and poorly prepared document was on a web site and I agree with the decision to take it down.

We have often seen contingency plans taken as an admission of "really serious problems are going to occur" when we know that it is only good business to prepare. I am going around the country encouraging such preparations because I understand the fact that there is increased risk. I am also encourage us to prepare. But... let's not assume that the Navy has decided that the world is going to hell in an hand basket!

Give me a break,


-- Steve Davis (steve@coalition2000.org), August 19, 1999.

OK, Mr. Davis, or Mr. Koskinen, or "whoever the hell cares to answer this question"-

On February 12, Navy personnell were sent an email to "calm their Y2K fears". Here is a portion of this message, as it realtes to power and water:


"E. Electric Power Supply Systems:

q6. will the electrical systems be y2k ready in time?

a6. based on recent analysis, on average, the electric industry is close to its y2k readiness targets. according to a report prepared for the department of energy by the north american electrical reliability council, "nearly all electrical systems necessary to operate into the year 2000 will have been tested, remediated, and declared y2k ready by june 30, 1999."

q7. some reports predict that there will be widespread power outages anticipated at the year 2000 mark. is this true?

a7. while we can't be certain there won't be some minor power disruptions, industry experts do not predict widespread outages. speculation that power distribution systems will experience widespread failures are not based on facts or rational analysis of information from the industry. continuity of service is a historical hallmark of the nation's utility industry. electrical industry efforts are on-target to maintain that same quality of service through the millennium.

F. Water Ultilities:

q8. will the water utility companies be y2k compliant by 2000?

a8. industry experts offer a range of answers to this question. some experts predict that some water suppliers may be temporarily unable to meet customer demand. however, water utilities and government agencies have comprehensive y2k- compliance programs under way and are spending large sums of money to prepare their computer systems to become y2k-compliant or y2k-ready. most experts believe water treatment and distribution should not be greatly affected by the y2k problem. "


They knew alot back in February, right? Enough to be so damn reassuring. In FEBRUARY, you should have known we were HOSED, but did you say that? Of course not.

How in the hell can you submit a report like the Pentagon Papers in JUNE, with THAT DATA, and now claim that it's "dated", just ignore it, NOW we're ready?

The bottom line is you know about as much now, as you knew then, and you will continue to spew the "old data" rountine right up unitl the lights go out, or the water dries up.

And when we ask why we we're warned, you'll tell us that you were relying on "old data". Like the stuff you collected in DECEMBER.

I need a drink.


-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999.

While recent and past Washington embarrassments make it hard to think that you can count on the government to give you the truth, I trust John totally as a source of information

So do I. As a source of bullshit information.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

Steve, I asked a couple of questions above, could you PLEASE answer them???

Also, If John Koskinen knew that y2k was going to be serious would he tell you and the American public??


-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Looks like a job for "Alexa" Link

Alexa provides "Snapshots of the Internet"
Too busy to check it out now myself...
===== ===== ===== ===== ==== ==== ===

How current is Alexa's copy of the Web?
As of May 1, 1999, Alexa's Web archive is in excess of 13 Terabytes and we take a new snapshot approximately every 30 - 60 days. (A terabyte is a million megabytes or 1,000,000,000,000 bytes).
In our experience, the number of Web sites is doubling every 6 months. Alexa began collecting the Web in early 1996 and we now have at least three snapshots of more than two million Web sites. We are beginning to adjust our visits of sites to reflect which sites change most frequently. We make it easy for Web site administrators to request that their site be archived at a particular time or not archived at all, whatever their preference.
The average Web page has a life of approximately 44 days. [To Top of Section]

8. Can I use the Alexa archive to view how a site looked on any given date?
Our primary goal is to assist users when they encounter dead links on the Web. The Alexa toolbar provides the user with the most recent snapshot we have of a given URL when they receive a "404-Page Not Found" mess

-- G (balzer@lanset.com), August 19, 1999.


Better make that drink a stiff one...booze is a disinfectant. From the looks of the water - sewer situation nationwide, tea totallers are TOAST! (LOL)

-- K. Stevens (Kstevens@It's ALL going away in January.com), August 19, 1999.

Hey Steve,

With no due respect, I don't care about your ears.

Above your response I raised the following issue to one of the other responders. Instead of responding with, "We're not worthy, we're not worthy to know and understand everything John Koskinen knows," try thinking for a moment.

Regardless of the date of the information which has now been disseminated across the world, if you had better (read more updated and accurate) information, wouldn't you disseminate it as widely as possible and quickly?

Perhaps YOU wouldn't, but that leaves two possible conclusions:

1. Kosky doesn't know either.

2. The situation is not much better than the not-so-up-to-date report that's already out there.

I know that you encourage people to prepare Steve, but can you imagine how many more people in this country would prepare if they knew that the Navy thought they were going to be screwed by problems in this many cities?

Can you imagine how much better off the country--nay, the world would be?

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Ray: Sorry but I don't have time to read all of the fan mail. I now know remember why I normally stay out of here! I do not know the URL but I know that it was live up until August 10 and that the report on- line on that date was more up-to-date than the one from June. I have a copy of that (excel spreadsheet). It was mostly zeros and ones. Of course everyone will say that was a government plot to cover things up...



-- Steve Davis (steve@coalition2000.org), August 19, 1999.

WHY, would they say it was a plot, Steve? WHY?

Re-read my post. In FEBRUARY, when things must have been much more dire than they were in June, the mil was sending out emails to the folks "they care the most about" that said not to worry. All was under control.

And yet, earlier this year (you'll agree that FEBRUARY is pretty early, right?), they, and I quote here "were having a lot of trouble earlier this year getting people to tell them anything.".

So is a government plot so outrageous? If so, what would YOU call it? Simple incompetence and fear is my guess.


-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), August 19, 1999.

Two points occur to me.

1. The military is very often the lifeblood (or a large part thereof) of the cities mentioned. The cities bend over backwards to see the military is well taken care of. With this in mind, two questions arise: a) Wouldn't those cities put the best face on things? b) Wouldn't those cities do their damnedest to see that utilities are in the best shape possible? Even if it is "old" information, I would have expected more reassuring news. It's discouraging, to say the least.

2. With the release of this assessment, it would not be surprising to see some sort of run on local supplies this weekend--starting now for mail order.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), August 19, 1999.

Thanks Steve, I know your not in the most enviable position right now and I do appreciate your reply.

I guess if the document was available to the public it was not classified.

My other question was simply, if John Koskinen knew y2k was going to be serious would he tell you and the American public??


-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Steve wrote: "I do not know the URL but I know that it was live up until August 10 and that the report on- line on that date was more up-to-date than the one from June. I have a copy of that (excel spreadsheet). It was mostly zeros and ones."

Honest question, Steve: How do you "know" these things?

Or should you have written "I've been told..." and, "The copy of the spreadsheet I was given today..."

So to restate: Did you "know" this before your visit with Mr. K, or is this what he told you?

Perhaps it doesn't make any difference... but then again maybe some people would really trust what YOU know, and not what someone else has told you.

Sigh if you want, but let's be honest here: This man was put in place by someone who believes lying is perfectly acceptable when it's for "a good purpose." We can lament that all we like, but it's the truth.

A sad day in America, but apparently 73% of us said it didn't matter that our President is a bald-faced, non-repentant liar. Now we have to live with the culture of distrust that is the logical result.

When lying is tolerated, yea rewarded, can we trust anyone?

God help us... even if Y2k somehow--miraculously--turns out to be not much.


-- Bob Allen (gsf1@compuserve.com), August 19, 1999.

Steve- Don't want to add to your heavy burden here, but I have a simple question: Are you a flunky?

Thanks, dude.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Steve, I'm sorry, I know you're busy, but I would really like to know Koskie's "Take" on this....if you could just ring him up. Thanks

>> Forum: gov.us.fed.doc.cbd.solicitations >> Thread: CBD GENERATOR RENTAL >> Message 1 of 1

Subject: CBD GENERATOR RENTAL Date: 1999/07/30 Author: Commerce Business Daily Posting History

From Commerce Business Daily, August 2, 1999 PSA-2400 GENERATOR RENTAL Category : (Lease or Rental of Equipment) Address : ESC/PKOP, Services Branch, Operational Contracting Division, 104 Barksdale St., Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-1806 Sol. no. : F19650-99-T-0934 Contact : Tatia Evelyn-Feggans, Contract Specialist, 781-377-3251 Due : 16 Aug, 1999 SOL F19650-99-T-0934 DUE 081699 POC Tatia Evelyn-Feggans, Contract Specialist, 781-377-3251 WEB: ESC Business Opportunities Web Page, http://www.herbb.hanscom.af.mil. E-MAIL: Click Here to E-mail the POC, Tatia.Evelyn-Feggans@Hanscom.AF.MIL. This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for the commercial items prepared in accordance with the format in FAR Subpart 12.6, as supplemented with additional comments included in this notice. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation; proposals are being requested and a written solicitation will not be issued. This solicitation F19650-99-T-0934 is being used as a Request for Quotation (RFQ). This document and incorporated provisions and clauses are those in effect through FAC 97-11 dated 03MAY03. This acquisition is 100% set-aside for small business. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code is 3599, and the small business size standard is less than 500 employees. The supplies to be leased are as follows: The contractor shall provide eight mobile (trailer-mounted) generators for designated Y2K shelters. Three (3) @ 350KW, one (1) @ 200KW, three (3) @ 100KW, and one (1) @ 60KW. Generators should have a minimum 12 hour capacity internal fuel tank. Rental period will be from 1 DEC 99 through 31 JAN 00, with an option to extend until 28 FEB 00.

-- Charli Claypool (claypool@belatlantic.net), August 19, 1999.

Thanks for responding Steve.

*Sigh too*



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

It is possible that a document taken out of context or presenting an outdated document can give a person a false impression of what's really going on.

Many years ago, I wrote a short story, for a college composition class, about killing my neighbors dog. I got the idea because I was working a graveyard shift job, at the time, and the dog barked continuously, while I was trying to sleep. The story was purely dirivative from Poe's "Tell Tale Heart" and that's all the details you need.

I still have that story, floating about, in my papers, somewhere. Someone could find that, and use it as evidence that I was a seriously deranged individual, since it doesn't say, in bright bold ink, anywhere, that it is a work of fiction and a flawed attempt at being tongue-in-cheek.

Isn't it just a little too early to be making judgements, one way or the other, about this document?

-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 19, 1999.

Here is my last response - got to run....

The document was/is not classified.

Yes - the information that I have shared with you was all told to me by Koskinen and I will leave you all to try to figure out how this is a conspriracy and to discuss Clinton, etc..

No - I am not a flunky... I do not work for any government in any way shape or form... my opoinions (such as they are) are all mine. If I was an agent of disinformation you would see me spending a lot more time here.

The simple truth is that I have simply formed a good professional relationship with John where we share information. He has this type of relationship with dozens of Y2K'ers. I got my foot in the door when I first met him while working on Y2K for Montgomery County and the Washington Council of Governments and now deal with him as Director of Coalition 2000. We are not in lockstep - I have disagreed with him on many things in the past. Most importantly on the lack of national leadership calling for preparedness. He has gradually moved towards my position and is more vocal now about the need for everyone to take some preparations (he is no Mline though).

But hey, what do I know?


-- Steve Davis (steve@Coalition2000.org), August 19, 1999.

-- Bokonon commented:

"Isn't it just a little too early to be making judgements, one way or the other, about this document? "

Not at all Bok, as a matter of fact it is quite LATE in the game. I believe the time for Reminising was over a LONG time ago. Especially when your dealing with the level of PROFESSIONAL SPINNERS that exist today.


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), August 19, 1999.


If I was an agent of disinformation you would see me spending a lot more time here.

Well, for what its worth *some* of us do try to sift through the chaff and find the dot gov and dot mil wheat.

NOT!... an easy job.


Thanks again for visiting!


And yet another thread...

Jim Lord: Why I am watching intently but with skepticism

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Ggw

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Once again Steve, THANKS for stepping up to the plate, not an easy task at this point in time.


-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 19, 1999.

Oh, yeah, that cleared that up. LOL!!

It is going to be fascinating to see what, if anything, hits the mainstream press. And how, assuming ANYTHING does, it stacks up against the crock that we have been handed here.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

It seems to me that the real question is, if this data was preliminary, where is the accurate data? Are we supposed to believe that in mid-August 1999 the Pentagon does not have a handle on whether or not its bases will fizzle out come 1/1/00? If so, that in itself is cause for alarm.

Then again, the accurate data may indeed already have been compiled by the Pentagon. And it may just be that document IS classified.

-- a (a@a.a), August 19, 1999.

Steve Davis,

Thank youfor posting here.

It seems you via Mr. Koskinen did confirm that Lord's data was from an authentic source. If there is a more up-to-date version, please advise the URL.

Re spreadsheets: Aren't they all mostly 1's and 0" as in digitized binary format. .

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), August 19, 1999.


I'm not sure if you'll bother to visit again but I feel compelled to share my two cents.

Your present attitude and the way you've addressed those concerned here has me very puzzled. Honestly, I had no idea you existed until today. However, that you are a "leader" and you write with such an impatient, almost calas tone of disregard for the worries of those who frequent this board is not at all appreciated by me.

You see, we aren't as "connected" as you.

You wrote,

"Now about John Koskinen. I have had far more interaction and disagreement with John than with Jim. We have not always agreed on things but I know him to be a credible and trustworthy source of information"

Well, excellent. Many here don't share the kind of relationship you have with the Y2k Czar. We're left puzzled and bewildered by his double talk and side-stepping. And, since we're all adults with capable minds who can make them up based upon our own human abilities then I would suggest that before you take your present tone you cut us some slack.

We don't have the "connections" you do. We're left to decipher everything. Many here have not only pondered whether or not this document was real but also if it should have been released and what exactly the consequences might be.

You have entered into a thread, read a few posts and drawn conclusions that we're all blithering idiots who want to perpetuate the rumor mill.

We want REAL answers. That is all.

Can you explain to me and everyone else here who is interested why it is that the government and Mr. Koskinen are NOT more forthcoming regarding REAL information? You know, don't bother.

I can make up my own mind. I can view documentation and form my own conclusions. And, regardless of the fact that you have an inside track to THE MAN doesn't necessarily mean that the information he shares isn't 100% truthful.

I'll stick with my initial, gut feeling about this information. And, because Jim Lord has some intereting ties to the military I'll consider that in my evaluation. And, because Jim Lord has a book to sell, I'll put remember that in my assessment. And, because it was Jim Lord who seemed to be pushing for a FOIA action by regular folks, like me, I'll keep that in my considerations.

However, when I read or watch John Koskinen, I don't see him acting in MY best interests. I don't see him acting in MY neighbors best interests.

As I stated before, I am now aware of your existance. You have no idea who the heck I am. I don't expect you to care much. However, there are a lot of people just like me here. There are many more people like me here, searching for answers, then there are like you. You, as you have stated, are a "leader".

IMHO, being a leader doesn't mean you pop into a board like this and bang people on the head with your "connections."

So, I'll keep my eyes and my ears open and see just what kind of leader you are.

Why don't you begin with this. I suggest you apologize for the way you've responded in some of your posts, even though some of your anger may have been legitimate and some may well have deserved it.

Koskinen may well be a slippery snake of a man who seems very skillful at never answering a question but I have never seen him respond in the manner in which I've read from you today. Koskinen seems to be an excellent manager with a lot of talent who has ALWAYS remained professional, like it or not. I can't say the same for you thusfar.

Just my two cents, and I can *sigh* with the best of them.



-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Look at it this way. All but the most ardent pollys and the grimmest doomers agree on one thing: we're not sure what is going to happen.

The sensible thing to do, then, is to prepare for whatever you think might be the worst-case scenario. To figure out what that is, you need to look at as much evidence as you need to make a decision. This was evidence.

Koskinen's response lacked credibility, because it was based on the default answers being judged harshly, while the survey had graduated responses.

There is absolutely no doubt in either camp's mind that the government is doing everything it can to prevent a public panic. Given that, Koskinen's response was a foregone conclusion.

It doesn't make sense and it was a foregone conclusion. I don't know how much more analysis this needs.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 19, 1999.

From the Naval War College site under Introduction:


Starting early this year, DoD attention has turned increasingly to the subject of host nation and US local community support to military bases--namely, utilities such as electricity, phone systems, and sewer. We like to describe this set of potential issues as the known unknowns, meaning identified problems without easily identified answers. If the known knowns can be thought of as existing inside the wire, then the known unknowns are basically those Y2K issue areas that cross the wire that separates the military and civilian worlds. From DoD's perspective, no matter how well they remediate their own systems and networks, there's still the huge question of how much their base operations rely on host nation support. This will be a subject of intense DoD effort and planning as the rest of the year unfolds.

Our project's work really has nothing to do with either of those first two problem sets, for what we're really concerned with is what can still go wrong beyond the wire. Moreover, we're not concerned with bases located within the US, as Y2K crisis management within the US will be led by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in conjunction with a host of state and local government agencies. Thus, our study's focus is exclusively on what could go wrong during Y2K beyond the wire in foreign countries, or crises to which DoD could be called upon by National Command Authority (i.e., the White House) to respond. This is the real set of unknown unknowns, for while most Y2K analysts will agree that we have a fairly decent read on what will or will not likely happen in the US, our sense of what could or could not go wrong abroad is far weaker.

Historically, the US responds to about 5 to 8 major crises a year around the world with some sort of significant military effort (e.g., ships dispatched, troops deployed, planes fly sorties). Typically, 2 to 3 of these crises are ongoing situations where we continue operations begun in a previous year, like those today in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia or Iraq. The rest tend to be "peaks in messes," meaning ongoing bad situations that flare up or deteriorate to the point that the US decides to intervene militarily in some manner, such as recent forays into Haiti or Somalia.

Of course, the $64,000 question with Y2K and the Millennial Date Change Event is, "Is this confluence of elements likely to create a higher-than-normal crisis load for DoD over the year 2000?" For example, instead of looking out on the world and seeing the usual 10 to 20 crises and picking 5 to 8 for response, does the US Government look out over the course of 2000 and see some larger number of crises, and, if so, do we pick the same "top 5 to 8?" Or a different "top 5 to 8?" (meaning our calculus of national interest might be changed during this unusual period). Or do we try to do more than the usual effort? In short, how important may Y2K turn out to be in terms of US foreign policy--both in the short term and over the longer term? No one can offer precise answers to these questions. What we can say, though, is that our analysis to date hasn't uncovered any serious evidence that what DoD could be called upon to do in terms of crisis response would be dramatically different from what we've done in the past--namely, disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. Of course, there's always the chance that crisis will generate conflict, but again, we don't foresee any new species of crisis here, but rather the types of situations with which DoD has great experience.

We believe our analysis offers particular utility in alerting military planners, decision makers, and operational commanders to the sorts of broad scenario dynamics they may encounter if they are called upon to engage in military operations in response to Y2K-related crises, or even non-Y2K-related crises that occur during the same time period. So while the missions may not change, the local and regional environment within which those missions occur may experience social, political, economic and infrastructural dynamics that are unusual and linked to either Y2K or the larger Millennial Date Change Event.

Moreover, to whatever extent our analysis of generic Y2K and Millennial Date Change Event scenario dynamics illuminates potentially similar dynamics within the US, additional understanding may accrue concerning the overall stress level that may occur "back at the home front."

Again, none of our material here is meant to be predictive in the sense of providing a step-by-step "cookbook" approach to Y2K and Millennial Date Change crisis management. Our fundamental goal in collecting and synthesizing this analysis is to avoid any situation where US military decision makers and/or operational commanders would find themselves in seemingly uncharted territory and declare, "I had no idea . . .." We can't and won't tell any regional CINC staff how to run a military operation during Y2K's unfolding or the Millennial Date Change Event. They know far better than we how to proceed in such real world contingencies. All we can do is alert them to the particular scenario dynamics that may come together during this potentially unusual global experience. A Process View of Y2K

"Y2K--The Event" will feature a distinct build-up phase (already begun), a peak period we consider "THE crisis," and an "end" phase in which the crisis unwinds either by its own accord or, more likely, by decree. Either governments will declare that the "crisis has passed" or some other crisis will arise and capture our attention. Slide 2 below presents another way of thinking through the process of Y2K's build-up, unfolding, and end.


Thought it was interesting in light of this discussion and the recent document disc

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

another interesting bit of insight from the NWC site...


Conclusion #4--Y2K Will Demonstrate the Price of Secrecy and the Promise of Transparency

Those who are more open and transparent and share information more freely will do better with Y2K than those who hoard information, throw up firewalls, and refuse outside help. Secrecy will backfire in almost all instances, leading to misperceptions and harmful, stupidly self-fulfilling actions. Governments must be as open with their populations as possible, or suffer serious political backlashes if and when Y2K proves more significant for their countries than they had previously let on. People's fears about "invisible technology" will either be conquered or fed by how Y2K unfolds. This is a pivotal moment in human history: the first time Information Technology has threatened to bite back in a systematic way. In a very Nietzschean manner, Y2K will either "kill" us or make us stronger, and the balance of secrecy versus transparency will decide much, if not all, of that outcome.


something else to ponder in light of the information/disinformation wars going on.

This isn't to suggest that Steve Davis is part of any conspiracy. It is, however, pertinent because the government has not been forthcoming with more real and accurate information.



-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Dog Gone, You are right on the money. I know that this has been touched on before but. About two to two and a half years ago when the scope of the problem was becoming better understood and well known. A mass countrywide preparation could have been slowly orchestrated by the fed and local governments but, "it will be fixed" & "plenty of time"............were the thoughts of the day. However, somewhere in the timeline from then to now we crossed over the panic threshold. They couldn't admit major problems now even if they truly thought the swgthtf. Make no mistake about it............panic will crush this economy Y2K or not.

-- CP (Spoonman@prodigy.net), August 19, 1999.

Steve...apparently the Washington Post and the AP have become panic mongers... and on the same level as the "National Inquirer"...

Navy Predicts Widespread Y2K Failure

By Ted Bridis Associated Press Writer Thursday, August 19, 1999; 7:27 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Navy report predicts ``probable'' or ``likely'' failures in electrical and water systems for many cities because of the Year 2000 technology problem -- an assessment more dire than any other made by the government.

President Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's conclusions overly cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities would fail unless proved otherwise.

The most recent version of the study, updated less than two weeks ago, predicted ``probable'' or ``likely'' partial failures in electric utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps facilities.

The study predicted ``likely'' partial electrical failures, for example, at facilities in Orlando, Fla.; Gulfport, Miss.; Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; and nine other small- to mid-size cities. It also predicted ``probable'' partial water system failures in Dallas; Nashville, Tenn.; Houston; Baton Rouge, La.; Montgomery, Ala; Tulsa, Okla.; and 59 other cities.

The study forecast likely partial natural gas failures -- in the middle of winter -- in Albany, N.Y.; Fort Worth, Texas; Pensacola, Fla.; Charleston, S.C.; Columbus, Ohio; and Nashville.

The military report contrasts sharply with predictions from the White House, which weeks ago said in a report that national electrical failures are ``highly unlikely.'' The White House report also said disruptions in water service from the date rollover are ``increasingly unlikely.''

Koskinen, who vouched for the authenticity of the Navy report, noted that all its worst-case predictions for failures were marked as ``interim'' or ``partial'' assessments.

``It's not nearly as interesting as the world coming to an end,'' said Koskinen. ``The way they worked was, until you have information for contingency planning purposes, you ought to assume there was a problem.''

The Year 2000 problem occurs because some computer programs, especially older ones, might fail when the date changes to 2000. Because the programs were written to recognize only the last two digits of a year, such programs could read the digits ``00'' as 1900 instead of 2000, potentially causing problems with financial transactions, airline schedules and electrical grids.

The Navy report was first summarized on an Internet site run by Jim Lord, a Y2K author, who said he obtained it ``from a confidential source of the highest reliability and integrity.''

``The military has to work from the worst case, but so do we,'' Lord told The Associated Press on Thursday. ``It's reprehensible for them to know this and keep it from us.''

Koskinen said the Navy wasn't withholding information from anyone, noting that the continually updated report was available until recently on a Web site maintained by the Defense Department. ``The last people in the world the department is going to keep information from is their own people,'' Koskinen said. ``In fact, the whole purpose of the exercise is to make sure they can provide appropriate information to servicemen on their bases and their families.

The report was pulled off the Web site two weeks, Koskinen said. Neither he nor Defense Department officials offered any reason why. ) Copyright 1999 The Associated Press ===========================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Michael, Steve Davis is not "connected" but concocted.
And, he is arrogant, superficial, supercilious, and entwined with Koffinsky, a suave lying poisonous oily forked tongue snake. Appropriate slimy bedfellows slithering in the parched grass.

Perhaps because we are straightforward and do not lie, our BS detect-o-meter went off the scale reading Steve Davis' posts here.

Best to stay far away from such filthy lie-infested perversions of simple decency.

Trust only your preparations and relationship with God. Then you will be on the straight, right and true path, and will not be sucked into a morass of doubts, second-guessing, dithering, and inertia -- the devil's tactics.

@}->-- 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 @}->-- 3~0 3~0 3~0

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

"'What qualifies Steve Davis to tell any of us what John Koskinen says or believes? Why doesn't Mr. Koskinen speak to us himself?It is his job is it not?'

Because Steve, as a Y2K Community Activist, knows Koskinen directly, and when this report went around, he asked John for all of us. Many of us can "confirm" that Steve has access to Koskinen."

Diane...then if Steve Davis knows John so well...why wasnt Davis telling the rest of us that the gov't calming tone the first 7+ months of this year was based on pure hooey?

-- jonagb (gbenesch@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

"Koskinen, who vouched for the authenticity of the Navy report." -- Washington Post

Well... that's key.


When I joined the [civicprep] lists earlier in the year, the BIG debate was "how long" to prepare for. To be fair, Steve DID NOT agree with Koskinen's present 3-day storm scenario AT ALL. As I recall (but don't quote me) I think Steve wanted at least two weeks to be the standard recommendation.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Got beans?

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), August 19, 1999.

Give me a break. What did you expect from K-man? His job is to keep people calm, keep them from taking money out of the banks, and to keep the market going. Let's grow up here folks. Welcome to the real world.

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Maybe you all can explain why everyone is kissing up to Steve Davis while he performs CYA for Koskinen?

The bottom line is that this document was compiled by the military and predicts massive failures. Period. Their data may be accurate; it may be inaccurate.

As citizens (Lord made this point today on the radio), we have a right to ask the hard questions and get the hard answers.

Davis' paternalism and condescension, including his snide attitude about this forum, is just more of the same crap.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), August 19, 1999.

uh, BigDog, did you notice we did not kiss nuttin? ;^)
A person who behaves as Davis has immediately destroys his credibility and lends much weight to the opposite consideration.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

OK, so I should have called him something worse than "flunky". Sorry, I'll try to do better next time.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

And... MORE threads...

Lord's Y2K Pentagon Papers confirmed in Washington Post; Koskinen singing a different tune

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gla

Is anyone familiar with the Navy website Kosky says existed?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gmi


http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GmM

I can no longer access Jim Lord's site

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GmS

Drudge picks up link to Lord story

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gnb

Diane J. Squire - C4I - Jim Lord ???

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gi5

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Like most of the people on this forum (and several other forums), I've read all of the postings about Jim Lord's "Pentagon Papers" with great interest and deep concern. A number of excellent points have already been made on this thread; here are a few of my own observations:

1. Credibility of the players: I've met Lord and Koskinen in person, and I know Steve Davis from numerous email exchanges over the past couple of years. I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of all them; whether they turn out to be right or wrong, I think they all truly believe what they're saying to us -- which is in stark contrast to what I see in the day-to-day business world, where the "rules" of competitive behavior rarely require anything more than a surface-level pretense of sincerity. Nevertheless, the "bottom line" for me is that I would only trust the safety of my family to someone that I've known long enough to have gone through one or more life-and-death crises, in order to have a true sense of how they react under such circumstances. In a few rare cases, that might happen in a new friendship; but in most cases, it only happens after I've known someone 5, 10, or 15 years. For better or worse, I have to say that I don't know Lord, Koskinen, Davis, or many of the other Y2K "notables" well enough to warrant quite that level of trust, which means that I always have to remind myself to take everything they say with a small grain of salt. For many people, discussions like this are great for cocktail parties, but have no relevance in the "real" world; for people who really do think Y2K could pose life-and-death threats, it goes beyond idle cocktail chitter-chatter. Thus, I think one of the questions some of us have to ask ourselves after reading Lord's material, or Koskinen's rebuttal, or any of the related commentaries, is: sounds good, but would I entrust the safety of my spouse and my kids to this person, based on this information?

2. Authenticity of the Navy document: when I first read Jim's material, I was worried about this. Now I'm not -- it appears that Mr. Koskinen has publicly acknowledged that the original document did exist, and was published on a quasi-public web site at some relatively recent point in time.

3. Accuracy and timeliness of the Navy document, as compared to other quasi-official statements about Y2K readiness: bottom line is that nobody knows. Unless and until a more recent document appears from the same naval group, I don't see how we can reject this one as anything less than the "best guess" of at least one group within the Navy. It does seem to contradict the statement issued by Navy brass to their own personnel, but I don't think that necessarily proves that either document is right or wrong.

4. Should it have been released publicly? Obviously, Lord feels the answer is "yes," and Koskinen implies that the answer is "no." I was intrigued to see that Steve Davis seems to have sided with Koskinen on this one. My reaction on this one is entirely selfish, personal, and emotional: if the government is suggesting that the "public" is not entitled to know certain preliminary drafts of the Y2K situation, then I have to assume that I'm going to be included as part of that amorphous "public." It's all very interesting argue, in an abstract and academic sense, about whether John Q. Public is smart enough, mature enough, responsible enough, and experienced enough to be able to handle scary information. But what about you? What about me? And what are the credentials of those who apparently feel they have the God-given right to make such decisions? As noted above, I respect the intelligence, sincerity, and integrity of Lord, Koskinen, and Davis -- but I don't think they're sufficiently smarter, wiser, and purer than me to decide how what information I should be allowed to see, and what I shouldn't be allowed to see. I understand the notion that there may be people roaming the streets with an IQ of 76 who might do harm to themselves if provided access to scary information about Y2K; and in theory, I understand the concern that if the general public was given raw, unadulterated access to Y2K information, they might stampede and head for the banks to withdraw their money. These are serious issues, and I enjoy having a serious intellectual discussion about them ... but when I realize that, by virtue of not being a member of the political elite, I would end up being thrown into the same heap as the IQ-76 folks and the bank-run lemmings, I get very nervous about the possibility that my life is being manipulated. (For whatever it's worth, I would be just as nervous if someone told me that I would be allowed to be a member of the political elite if I would just keep my mouth shut; I don't like the idea of pulling the strings that control another person's life either).

5. Why do we have to "prove" anything about Lord's document anyway? The American system of justice assume that someone (including an individual, corporation, or any other entity) is innocent until proven guilty; even OJ got the benefit of that assumption. On that basis, the private-sector organizations and the government agencies are "innocent" of Y2K bugs until proven guilty; and on that basis, we would have to "prove" that the allegations in Lord's document were accurate, beyond a shadow of a doubt, before we did anything about them. But I think that Y2K is a classic case of safety-critical "auditing" in which one reverses the assumption: we should assume that computer systems, embedded systems, and the organizations that depend upon those systems, to be guilty until proven innocent. Organizations like FAA give lip service to this concept when they tell us that they would never compromise the public's safety with their air-traffic control systems ... but unless every FAA employee put every member of his/her immediate family on a New Year's Eve flight (not just Jane Garvey, John Koskinen, and the born-again optimist Peter de Jager), I'm not sure I trust their sincerity. As a practical matter, I don't think we're going to see any serious Y2K laws or regulations based on this principle -- but it does govern a lot of my thinking. Thus, for me the burden of proof is not on Jim Lord and his supporters to prove that their document is "right," but rather on the Y2K optimists to prove it's wrong. The notion that Mr. Koskinen's "Community Conversations" is providing such proof is laughable: these events have involved nothing more than public officials in some two dozen cities lecturing to an audience of a couple hundred people about why it's a bad idea for them to take their money out of the bank.


-- Ed Yourdon (HumptyDumptyY2K@yourdon.com), August 19, 1999.

I can't wait for tomorrow's episode. This has been a real hectic day.

No offence Steve, but I think someone is blowing smoke up your tail.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), August 19, 1999.

My, my, my.

I knew this would be an active day on the forum, but I had no idea it would become a firestorm.

The only thing I wish to add to the above comments is this question:

Where is John Hamre?


-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Thanks for your perspective Ed... always "on point."

(Good question FM)

Now, just in case Mr. John Koskinen IS lurking here today... would you care to comment? ('Cause I KNOW you were c.c.'d on one of Steve's civicprep communications).

Thank you... in advance.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 19, 1999.

Ah, Ed Yourdon the sensible, the one to tie up the loose ends with eminent practical clear points.

Ed, you will never be welcome into the folds of the bleating political elite. Your brain, heart and conscience are in good working order, and you maintain your dignity, clarity, center, and humanity even in the face of insidious manipulation and deviation -- obvious disqualifiers!

The political elite run from the thought of having to face you and hear your testimony. Their withered dark convoluted compromised minds cannot abide the light of your sincerity, not to mention your technical acumen.

Wear the fact of the empty room as a badge of honor standing eternal witness to your power of truth setting flight to the swarmy clueless lost damned droids.

You of all people do not need more info or validation or repudiation of any spreadsheets. You know in your gut and heart and years of code project watching. You bugged out. You've got solar! Keep prepping and gather your tribe.

Thanks for all your writing, and posting to this and the Egg Forum ;^)

Time Will Tell, Soon Now

@}->-- 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 @}->-- 3~0 3~0 3~0

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), August 19, 1999.

Inquiring minds want to know: Does Steve Davis have a brother named Paul?

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 19, 1999.


i think it more likely that steve has an alias............."Flint"

-- andrea (mebsmebs@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Well my crapola-detector just went off the deep end when I heard young Steve sucking up to Koskinen - hey Steve you should work for the Clinto Administration, you'd be in your element...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 19, 1999.

Well said Ashton and Leska. Ed, being too modest, has posted his opinion on this hot topic buried deep inside a thread.

You should have started a new thread Ed, titled "My take on Jim Lord's pentagon papers and Koskinen's response." Afterall, it's your forum ;-)

-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 19, 1999.


I have two more questions:

Where is "Researcher?" Diane? I think this might very well be a story (considering the AP coverage) that might warrant a pitch to the network news assignment desk.

Also, Scott Johnson? Are you there?


-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

And. . .

We must not forget Drew Parkhill.

Have you been checking in lately Drew?

Has anybody taken the time to email these folks?


-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

What a day. Never thought when I got up this morning that I would get embroiled in something like this. I have enjoyed the discussion and want you all to know I will still respect you in the morning. To those of you that I may have offended in my quest to offer my version of the truth I apologize. To those of you that flamed and tortured me I forgive you. To Ed - well said. To those of you that know me and stuck up for me thank you.

I have not stopped being a serious advocate for Y2K preparedness. I am still very concerned about our state of readiness and lack of preparedness. However, I still think that this whole thing boils down to publication of a seat-of-the-pants risk assessment that never should have seen the light of day. I think cities and counties are way behind in preparations but don't think that this was the "proof". This was all anecdotal and unverified.

If you are interested in the latest report from the Navy see my web site. You will also find a lot of risk management and preparedness advice there plus a pretty good description of doom and gloom as I know it - http://www.DavisLogic.com/.

This is my last post. I'm on the road again preaching about contingency planning and command centers.

Oh, BTW, I am too old to take a job as a white house intern ;)


-- Steve Davis (steve@coalition2000.org), August 19, 1999.


Well said.

Yes, what a day.

I've participated in the GSA bi-monthly teleconferences, and I know your name. You do good work.

I have only one slight difference of opinion with regard to this report:

Should it have seen the light of day?


Why do I think that?

Because, as a young journalist, I was trained--over and over--to understand that a journalist's most important duty is to monitor public officials.



-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Koskinen is chummy with grass-roots Y2K activists such Steve? I'd say Koskinen is using Steve and others to keep his finger on the pulses of the masses. Steve is just a pawn and deserves a break, IMHO.

-- Diane (DiR9290343@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

Ooops, Steve.

It should have been,

"I have only one slight difference of opinion with regard to YOUR INTERPRETATION of this report."

It's late. I'm tired.

But as long as I'm posting--"Dang it, Diane, where's 'Researcher?"


-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 19, 1999.

shits getting interesting now............


-- matt vaughn (mgv0415@hotmail.com), August 19, 1999.

Hey Andy I must have the same crapola-detector you have...mine is beeping like crazy too.

-- Mabel Dodge (cynical@me.net), August 20, 1999.

"I have gotten to what I think is the bottom of this issue. This information comes directly from John Koskinen." Steve Davis

heheheheheheh couldn't have said it better myself.

-- KostToThem is bottom feeding (way down@the.bottom), August 20, 1999.

FM, I e-mailed Drew. :-)

-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 20, 1999.



Would you please also email Scott Johnson at scojo@yahoo.com, and tell him I sent you? This story is not--as yet--on the "Y2k Today site." It should be.

Appreciation in advance. I have to head off to the pillow right now. 'Practically sleeping at the keyboard.


-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

So, now the man who took Koskinen's side over Jim Lord's would like you to visit his website. Making money seems to be his PRIMARY concern.

I have created a page on my website to honor this subject. It includes a link to the Navy Y2K site and has the latest version of the report that Jim wrote about. See http://www.DavisLogic.com/ the link is right at the top of the page.

-- Steve Davis (Steve@coalition2000.org), August 19, 1999.

-- (this@disgusts.me), August 20, 1999.

Isn't this issue of Koskinen's response a no-brainer?

The FACT that on many occasions in the last three months the amazing Mr. K has said that "the far larger threat to this administration is public panic" DEMANDS that any information that would lead to such a perceived "panic" be SQUELCHED / DENIED / BURIED / DISCREDITED by the gov't as soon as possible?

Ask your stockbroker. They do it all the damn time.

-- Greg Benesch (gbenesch@earthlink.net), August 20, 1999.

Does anyone else find it interesting that Koskinen is chummy with grass-roots Y2K activists such Steve? I'd say Koskinen is using Steve and others to keep his finger on the pulses of the masses. Steve is just a pawn and deserves a break, IMHO.

Well said Diane. I'll give Steve a break. But I've got to address this first.

The problem is that Steve doesn't seem to know that he was obviously manipulated today by Koskinen. And, this may be shocking but, this may not be the first time a real, concerned citizen has been manipulated and used as a tool to spread disinformation by our government.

Steve wrote,

If you are interested in the latest report from the Navy see my web site.

well, great Steve. However, there are other sites people here visit where we get information right from the horses mouth so to speak.

I'm getting the impression your real focus as a Y2k Community Preparedness Advocate is to save us from ourselves.

Good luck. No matter what, the people that will push this issue over the edge and into the abyss are the millions who have been constantly told this is a non-issue, 3 day storm and not the people here who are on a quest to find information and make an educated analysis of the situation.

We debate preparedness here everyday. We're all very aware of the situation.

The government spin may well push those who aren't as educated about the issues right over to the bank, at the last minute in a panic, to pull ALL their money out of the bank.

You wrote that the news today was all "was all anecdotal and unverified. "

Welcome to our world. As I said before, we want REAL ANSWERS.

Now, instead of you buying every tale that Koskinen spins for you why don't you dig a little deeper, push the man and get us some real information we can use? You're objectivity is clouded by your desire to keep your contact happy with you.

Read this,

"President Clinton's top Y2K adviser, John Koskinen, called the Navy's conclusions overly cautious, saying they assumed that major utilities would fail unless proved otherwise. "

Read it again.

This is a perfect example of doublespeak. I'll translate it for you.

He says that the Navy is being overly cautious because the major utilities cannot prove they will continue to operate.

They cannot prove they will not fail.

You listen to Koskinen because once in a while the guy throws you a bone of useful information and you have an "inside" track to the horses mouth. Must feel powerful, huh?

Maybe you should actually hear what the guy is saying.

And, don't be in such a hurry to think that we're all a bunch of teenagers who are getting excited because Mary Joe is pregnant with Tommy the Quarterbacks baby.

The risks and the stakes are way too high here and we've all long since left the life of leisure and youth. Now we're trying to figure out what kind of world our children will be living in a few months from now and how we can keep them safe, fed and alive.

This isn't some sitcom or soap opera. This is real life and you may be doing us more damage than good if you don't understand this.

I never elected you information officer.



-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

Someone always uses someone for either financial or social gain. This is a fact, Jack!

-- just the facts please (justthefactsplz@justthefactsplz.com), August 20, 1999.

The "proximity to power" equation is very interesting.


-- Wondering (Really@Wondering.Wondering), August 20, 1999.

power corrupts. eel

-- ugh (another one@putrid.con), August 20, 1999.

I've been following y2k since '97, prepping intensively since mid-98. Nobody has yet explained to me what SUBSTANCE today's little storm adds. UNTIL AND UNLESS WE GET ACCESS TO THE SURVEY OF UTILITY READINESS UPON WHICH THE NAVY RISK ASSESSMENTS WERE (SUPPOSEDLY) BASED, NO NEW INFORMATION HAS BEEN ADDED ! I frankly doubt that any such survey even exists. I think the document is nothing more than some low-level person listing the port cities and essentially saying "there is local utility dependence, and therefore possible risk." Well, duh! Until we get the following information about this mythical survey of utility readiness done by the Navy, their information, cheery or doomy, is no better than what we can obtain by going to a local utility's website. I want to know:

was there a detailed, technical survey of utility readiness for each mentioned city ?

who funded it and what office carried it out ?

when was it done ?

have updates and follow-throughs taken place, and if so when ?

who were the principle investigators ?

what is the survey methodology ? site visit ? announced or unannounced ? code walk-throughs ? self-reporting ? or what ?

where is the survey published ?

to what degree does it contradict/confirm the other y2k readiness statements of each utility involved ?

I think you will find there are no answers to any of the above questions. This is not because gov is covering up this mythical survey it is because no such survey was ever done. Therefore this report is pure guesswork, like everything else about y2k. This report is some stupid junior clerk bureacratic exercise that somebody wrote on a long lunch break and which higher ups forgot about.

Prep all you like, but I don't believe this report changes our knowledge of the probability of y2k infrastructure breakdowns one single iota.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), August 20, 1999.

Thanks for asking the right questions Count.

-- 1for$4.50 (or100for4@50.com), August 20, 1999.

So Count,

What you are saying makes a "certain" amount of sense...

However, this begs the question, are you telling me that Clinton, Gore and go-Skin'em have NOT been briefed by the CIA and or NSA and or any other quasi-alphabetic groups on the potential impact of y2k to the cities and the population at large?

Are you telling me that these agencies have fallen down on the job again? That hard data, as much as anyone can get at this stage of the game, is not in Gobmint hands???

Remember that Rubin briefed Clinton and Gore back in '95 - Clinton got it immediately and with a gleam in his eye began planning his power-grab 2000 agenda, Gore was too busy inventing the internet for it to sink in...

Pull the other one, it's got shiney tinkle-bells on Count...

TPTB know damn well what is going to happen - they are doing all in their power (think about it... - i.e. NADA - spin, disinformation, smilley smiley happy happy faces like go-skin-em and, ye gods, a new stooge to me going by the name of steve Davis...) to let the tsunami hit us all in 4 months time...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 20, 1999.

Count, you raise some great questions but you're missing the point.

Read the survey and the above article again. The referenced report was just part of a report. Obviously there was an assessment made otherwise you would not the references to "predicted ``probable'' or ``likely'' partial failures in electric utilities that serve nearly 60 of roughly 400 Navy and Marine Corps facilities."

Where this could be significant in my mind is that Koskinen has honestly admitted that the report is valid. The fact that many of the answers to the questions you've raised are still hidden from public view can perhaps be remedied if the FOIA requests are successful.

Either way, we've seen a really interesting show today. Steve Davis channeled Koskinen himself to answer the concerns of Jim Lord and other concerned people. Now, that's a rare event.

He answered quickly too which is a bit of a mind blower. Do you think he viewed this story as being a non-story? I don't get that impres

-- Mr. Incognito (don't spin or sp@m.me), August 20, 1999.

Steve Davis the new medium to channel the demon. LOL

-- seth ra (azzir@mumbab.bah), August 20, 1999.

And, thanks to the last few posts, this thread has lost some momentum.

-- always (looking@for.intelligence), August 20, 1999.


I E-mailed Drudge right after the Jim Lords pentagon paper was posted.Since it was the first time I E-mailed anyone,I'm not sure did it right.

-- maggie (aaa@aaa.com), August 20, 1999.

It was on drudge but the link is not there any more... strange...

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 20, 1999.

Steve Davis commented:

"I have created a page on my website to honor this subject. It includes a link to the Navy Y2K site and has the latest version of the report that Jim wrote about. See http://www.DavisLogic.com/ the link is right at the top of the page. "

Steve, could you tell us where you found the LATEST version of the Navy report??


-- Ray (ray@tottacc.com), August 20, 1999.

The fact that Koskinen troubled to respond so seriously to Lords' report is proof enough of the reality

-------------------------------------------- Year 2000 Contingency Planning Guide http://www.whistlepig.com/year2000.htm

-- Shirley Shorter (webmaster@whistlepig.com), August 20, 1999.

The real story here is just the post-spin and finger pointing. The gove are a bunch of real dumb-fucks you guys credit them with way too much intellgence. They have no idea which, if any, utilities will fail. But I certainly agree with the basic point of all engineering: if you don't know for sure that it works, it must be assumed broken. But we all KNEW THAT ALREADY, right ??

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), August 20, 1999.


I'll e-mail Researcher.

What this whole "event" indicates to me is that Navy (et. al.) knows about as much as we do... and is contingency planning based on utilities source information which is "questionable" at best. Sounds like they even question it.

In terms of Koskinen, well, he's a lawyer. Need I say more?

It's sure "interesting" to watch White House "Y2K spin" evolve as an art form.



-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

I'll throw my hat into the ring.... I have two points that I haven't yet seen (but with this issue, who can see it all?!?):

1. The last line from Steve's original rebuttal post:

The moral of this story is to always hold back on assuming these types of reports are 100% accurate until someone takes the time to look for the truth in these stories.

With a story this important, you'd think 'someone' (the Navy & Marines) would put the truth in the report to begin with and keep it 100% accurate on a timely basis. Being a Navy report, I would assume that it is correct (I mean, the U.S. Navy), but now I know better - don't assume the Navy is telling the truth.

2. The bottom line is that the content of the report doesn't really matter because it's still just a group of people guessing about the future based on incomplete information. It's really not much different then you or I or any other group of officials or individuals coming to their own conclusions. It doesn't matter how much money, intelligence, historical knowledge, or even sheer numbers of people - it doesn't matter when trying to predict the future. We're all on even ground.

The significance of the report is that it conflicts with the standard party line. It shows division, not unity. It reinforces the idea that the government is in major spin control and cannot be trusted. It is one more piece of evidence that fits into the puzzle. Unfortunately, the puzzle won't be completed in time, just like Y2K remediation & contingency.

-- Jim (x@x.x), August 20, 1999.

Thanks Jim. Your point #2 is what I've been trying to say on this thread.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), August 20, 1999.

I haven't posted here in a long time, but feel compelled to do so today. Many of you know me as a "polly" and think I'm just a troll, which is one of the reasons I don't post here anymore. Another reason is that this place is full of looney tunes.

Most people posting here are not involved in fixing Y2K or you would know that Steve Davis is one of the most respected experts in the field of Y2K risk management. His explanation and John Koskinen's response are reasonable and plausible to anyone who is actually managing a Y2K project.

Many of the responses here are just further proof that TB2000 is just a rumor mill. I, for one, will take Steve Davis's opinion over the combined opinion of this entire bulletin board ("pollys" excepted) any day.

This just may be the doomers' last hurrah so enjoy it while you can.


-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), August 20, 1999.

Thanks, Buddy, now that you have personally vouched for Steve Davis, there is no doubt in my mind: F-L-U-N-K-Y.

(Hey, Buddy, been posting under any other aliases lately? Or just sticking to the Gary North Is A Big Fat Idiot forum with the rest of the "school of memes" bonkers crowd? Moron.)

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 20, 1999.

More threads... (Sheesh!)

Koskinen speaks again. Paging Jim Lord?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GxB

Did the "Pentagon Papers of Y2k" story make your newspaper?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gx7

CBS TV Report Talks about the Navy Document

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gw6

Navy: "Consequence" vs "Perception" Management

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001H0M

Ed Yourdon comments on the Pentagon Papers

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gq6

Don't Get Overheated: There Will Be No Smoking Y2K Gun

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GqR

Final Parsing of Leaked Navy Report?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GxD

Pentagon Papers, planned "leak"??

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gse

Army and/or Airforce leaks next???

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GqD

Wanted: Jim Lord's PDF Files

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Guu

Updated navy report

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001GzT

The Gartner Report verses The Navy Report

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001Gz8

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.


Subj: An Open Letter to Jim Lord (Sent By E-Mail From A Navy Dot Mil)

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001H8i

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Steve, in one of your subsequent postings, you said that you've seen the updated report in an Excel spreadsheet format and that it was mostly zeros and ones... What do the zeros signify? I thought there were only three categories? 1. Partial failure is probable, 2. Partial failure is likely, and 3. Total failure is likely. Where do the zeros come in? I thought threes were the default?

-- Vroni (vroni@itsasecret.com), August 20, 1999.

Someone must have shipped him the binary version by mistake.

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 20, 1999.

Hot links...

How did Koskinen hear about the Navy Document? I told him.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001HGi

"Y2K Pentagon Papers" - "Secret Papers" Back ONLINE - NAVFAC Master Utilities Y2K Preparaedness Status Spreadsheet Explained

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001HGI

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), August 20, 1999.

Steve Davis worked with idiot Monkey County, you know, the ones who were held up as the great model of county Y2K compliancy, only to be exposed later for LIES and FALSEHOODS and lying about their progress. They're not ready and they're not going to make it.

Koskinen is inducting shills into the Y2K Liars Club.

-- not a member (Club@Liars.Spinners), August 21, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ