Hyatt Response to Navy Spin Control

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

Michael Hyatt just posted an article entitled Spin Control. It is a criticism of the government and media response to Jim Lord's report.

-- Bob Priam (bobpriam@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999

Answers

Michael Hyatt's web site attracts the most bizarre group of Y2k doomers I have seen to date. Spend a few minutes perusing the discussion boards and you will see what you are dealing with.

Of course his readers or members liked what he wrote, they also think everything is Y2k related.

Those are not normal preppers, they are the extreme fringe of the doomer clan.

-- no foil here (nofoilhere@tinsheets.com), August 26, 1999.


I'm sorry if I insult anyone, it's certainly not my intent...however, I do not like Hyatt. Ever since he came out with that $149.00 book on how to buy medication overseas he's just turned me off

I mean, come on, $149 bucks?!?

Plus, in that report he said the .gov said to prepare for a 3 day winter storm. No they didn't--just for "A" storm. SO, when I saw that error, I just couldn't read further...

Ah well,

-- mar (derigueur2@aol.com), August 26, 1999.


What bugs me about MH's rebuttal is that he is still trying to stand up for Jim Lord.

Lord took a hard to read report, created his own views (spin, yes spin) and shoveled it into the furnace that is the Y2k debate on the internet but didnt allow anyone else to see the report. At worst the report shows the military putting possible failure marks on areas where they didnt have more info, but JL had to go and make it into a frightening TEOTWAWKI scenario.

The fact JL made such a complex, detailed, colorful website for this shows that he wasnt just trying to release info, he had a "master plan" and spent a heck of alot of time getting it ready before it went live.

Common sense shows that JL wasnt interested in just telling the sleeping masses to wake up, he was likely trying to bring fame to himself, generate income now or in the future and to possibly start and agenda where he would be a focal point rather than just a messenger.

Why MH feels the need to keep standing up for JL is beyond me. Looks the same like when the Televangelists stick up for each other when one gets knocked down by the press.

-- Fat Tony (FatTony@youmammasehouse.com), August 26, 1999.


Just to correct the record . . . I didn't come out with a $149.00 book on how to buy medications. The book is by Michael McCormick; I just recommended it to my subscribers. (And still recommend it to anyone dependent on prescriptions meds.)

Maybe the people on my discussion board are bizarre. I guess it is all relative to where you stand on Y2K. The vast majority -- myself included -- do not think that Y2K is TEOTWAWKI. We do, however, think it is an event (or process) with enough uncertainty to make it prudent to prepare.

-- Michael S. Hyatt (mhyatt@michaelhyatt.com), August 26, 1999.


NO FOIL:

Excuse me, but the Hyatt people are no more "Doomer" than many of the others on the TB2K forum. That being the case, it must be the fact that it's a Christian site that bothers you so.

After all, according to MOST people in the U.S. these days, Christians are, by definition, lunatic fringe. How generous of you to treat them so kindly with your words.

-- nobody (noflame@this.time), August 26, 1999.



Hey ther Fat Tony... I'd believe Jim Lord a whole bunch sooner than I'd believe you...

You're just another nobody, trying to be somebody by tearing into someone who was doing what their conscience told them to.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 26, 1999.


Regardless of what one thinks about the Navy's June survey, the GAO survey conducted in late June/early July on the readiness of large American cities was not encouraging. See this thread:

"Should the Pentagon Papers have surprised us? July GAO report suggest maybe not..."

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001IO0

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


I just read the piece, and I think it's dead on. The spin machine in Washington went into hyperdrive to quickly say that either the report was out of date or it didn't mean what it said. Hyatt said it right.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 26, 1999.

Dennis, you are the "Fear Reporter" over at MH's site. You bring more tales of fear to them than anyone else. Even if something isnt related to Y2K you try to make it scary.



-- Fat Tony (FatTony@youmammashouse.com), August 26, 1999.


Hey "nobody", did it ever come to mind that I could be a Christian?.

Not all Christians are planning for the Apocalyse you know. Most Christians are going on with their lives and some are preparing but MOST people on MH's site (Christian or not) are resigned to doom.

So MH's site is a Christian site?. Not my kind of Christian.

-- no foil (nofoilhere@tinsheets.com), August 26, 1999.



FT, I do not think of myself as a "fear reporter". If you're going to accuse me, provide some links, eh? The things I post on Hyatt I usually get from THIS BOARD! And most of the time, I don't add much in the way of commentary.

I try to get people to WAKE UP AND THINK about what's possibly going on in the bigger scheme of things. If that makes YOU nervous, well, there's not much I can do for you. Why not come on over to Hyatt, and call me out on some, hmmmm?

You are certainly welcome to do so, as long as you keep the discussion civil. Hyatt is not an open forum, and certain rules of politeness apply.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), August 26, 1999.


Fat Tony,

Just remember to pause and reflect on your 'big macho talk' and your psuedo-intellectualism when you're either punching out or shooting someone to get at his/her food or water because you were too proud to prepare.

-- Mike Mercado (cinderelaman@lds.net), August 26, 1999.


Dennis, how about this. Why dont people to go http://www.michaelhyatt.com

They have to click the discussion groups in the upper right of the screen.

Now all the have to do is go to any of the first 4 or 5 boards and read the messages you posted in the last 60-90 days and see how many of them are "this is pretty scary" or "got guns" or "its coming" or what ever. Your posts almost always try to incite fear.

When people on that board try to debate your messages you become riled up and offensive, sometimes insulting or evern cursing.

There are over 2000 people who read that board and you can be sure alot wouldnt post a rebuttal against you after seeing how nasty you can be.

-- Fat Tony (FatTony@yoummasehouse.com), August 26, 1999.


I continue to wonder about unanswered questions that I was reminded of when reading Jim Lord's Pentagon Papers. Below, I toss a few out for your consideration and answers:

Some eletrical generation plants rely on natural gas. I don't know whether it is for generation, back up generators, or what. However, I specifically remember that NERC contingency plans suggested planning for natural gas disruptions. If a plant has not stockpiled natural gas and the flow of natural gas is disrupted, what happens? If you are in an area in which flow of natural gas is likely to be disrupted, will this mean that a disruption in electricity may follow?

It is understood that electric generation/supply disruptions would effect nuclear power plants in their cool down process. Are nuclear power plants also vulnerable to water and natural gas disruptions?

If there are any disruptions to the flow of water, how will this effect businesses (corporate offices, restaraunts, etc.) in terms of regulations that require operational water-fed sprinkler systems?

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 26, 1999.


Sorry, Stan, it's almost impossible to "stockpile" natural gas: what comes "out" one end of the pipeline (into the burner in the fossil plant boiler or the gas turbine) must be immediately replaced at the other end by gas from a well or refinery/natural gas shipping terminal. (A few spots allow cryogenic (liquidified) natural gas stowage, but they are the rearity due to cost, complexity, and problems if the "big" tanks leak or loose refrigeration.

The natural gas pipelines (between the oil field/natural gas field and the burner) are perioditcally "re-pressurized" by huge, high-pressure in-line natural gas-fired gas turbine "pumps". They too require the usual phones, remote access, remote controls and sensors, and remote shutdown that the boiler do.

So the natual gas pump stations and metering stations are vunerable.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), August 26, 1999.



Robert, actually natural gas is stored all the time by gas utilities. It's injected into the ground (where the rock conditions are right) and then taken out again when demand is high. Granted, this underground storage reservoir may be miles from the customers and isn't something an electric utility or any other customer can control, but it might provide some sort of cushion for natural gas supplies if it is disrupted at the source.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 26, 1999.

I guess I'm one of the "bizaar" people you all are talking about because I post on Michael Hyatt's board every day. I come to this board every day also, but never post. Do you know why? I don't appreciate the way some members are treated here. I dislike the vulgar language and so much band width is given over to statements like "do you want to mud wrestle". This intimidates some people. At Mr. Hyatt's bboard none of this nonsense goes on. As far as the debate about the Navy report I think if you go to this link it will substantiate just how serious Y2K is not only in our country, but for the entire world. This just came off the wires late this afternoon. Thank you for listening.

http://www.iy2kcc.org/CountryWeb.htm

The charts depict sector readiness by country. The number in each block indicates the month in which the country reports it will be 90 percent complete with its Y2K implementation in that sector. The color indicates the level of dependence on information technology in that sector.

Continuity/contingency planning and emergency response information for each sector can be found by clicking on the cell for the particular country and sector. Reported challenges and concerns for each sector are also detailed.

In many cases, a country's national Y2K web site provides detailed information on sector status and contingency planning. For links to country web pages, please go directly to Country Links.

Additional country readiness information will be added as soon as it is received from reporting national coordinators.

Y2K Global Readiness Status by Region and Country Asia Central America and the Caribbean Eastern Europe and Central Asia Middle East and North Africa North America South America Sub Saharan Africa Western Europe

-- Brenda Looney (blooney@aol.com), August 26, 1999.


Morehead City manager says Navy's Y2K utility report is completely off base By Brad Rich; Staff Writer

MOREHEAD CITY - City Manger Randy Martin wasn't exactly alarmed when he read this past weekend that the U.S. Navy had concluded the city's gas system would likely fail because of the so-called Y2K computer glitch.

Nor was the manager the least bit concerned when the same report indicated the city's water system would probably take a dive, too.

That's because the city doesn't even have a natural gas system, and its water and sewer systems are so technologically behind the times that Y2K will have no effect at all on the operation.

"I read it and I said, `What in the world is this,' " Mr. Martin said. "I thought it was a joke at first. But I have been getting calls out the ying-yang about it."

http://www.cartere tnewstimes.com/headln1.htm

Is this more media/government spin of what Hyatt calls the Navy's "smoking gun" report?

-- CD (not@here.com), August 26, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ