---

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

---

Subject: The USA Deserves What It Is About To Receive, In Spades

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 1999 19:55:21 -0500

From: "Paul Milne"

Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary ________________________________________________________________

For Immediate Release - December 14, 1999

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

With the end of the year in sight, I am pleased to release Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) final quarterly report that shows that the Federal government is ready for the year 2000.

( On it's face this is ludicrous. The Federal government has redefined readiness to co-incide with the level of their accomplishmnet. How convenient.)

As of today, 99.9 per cent of the government's mission critical computer systems are Y2K compliant.

( Again, ludicrous. The Federal government has over 70,000 computer systems. They began by categorically saying they would fix them ALL. Then, after realizing how far off base they were, the came to the understanding that they could only concentrate on the 'rilly rilly important ones'. They began by announcing that the important ones numbered about 9,000. Then it dwindled to 8,000 and down to 7,000 and down to just above 6,000 as it now stands. So, they have said they have remediated less than 10% of all their systems and defined that as ready. We shall soon see.)

They have been fixed, tested and certified as ready for operation on January 1, 2000. We have met the challenge of making sure that the federal government can continue to serve the American people as we enter the next century.

Three years ago when we started our intensive work on Y2K, only one-fifth of the mission critical systems was ready. Many said that the Federal government was not up to the job, that the deadline would not be met, and that the price tag would be exorbitant, as much as $50 billion dollars.

( Yup, that's right. That is a wild underestimate for ALL the systems. But being the master equivocator that he is he does not mention that the higher number is for ten times as many systems or that the number worked on is a fractional part of the totality. )

Today, the facts are clear: we have done our job, we have met the deadline, and we have done it at below cost.

++++++++++++++++++++

The last statement is a bald-faced lie. 'Below cost'? He means 'under budget'. Patent lie. The original budget was for one BBBBilion. Then it escalated to 2.3 BBBBillion. Then burgeoned to over 4 BBBBBillion and ended up at approximately 8.5 BBBillion. All the whole while, the number of systems that they were working on shrunk by an order of magnitude down to less than 10% of the totality of systems.

You have to be a clueless dolt to swallow this bizarre spin. I'm sure this constitutes 99.9% of our population.

--

Paul Milne

Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"

bks: "It was not overt lying. It was overgeneralization for rhetorical purposes."

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 15, 1999

Answers

Sure, and 00.1 per cent of all pigs fly when you aren't watching 'em.

-- Bubba Smith (duck&cover@tshtf.com), December 15, 1999.

Another post of the announcement said 97% of federal goobermint non-mission-critical systems/ software were fixed too -- I can't find that in the original press release, but it would be surprising if I did find it -- the federal goobermint has rarely even mentioned the existence of non- mission critical systems/software. I suspect they were hoping no journalist would ask how the goobermint could function without 90% of its systems/software (non-mission-critical) ready for Y2K ... or why it even had so many non-mission- critical systems in the first place.

-- Richard Greene (Rgreene2@ford.com), December 15, 1999.

Oh, why it's snooze muffin, fresh from his foray on the debunker site. You know, a moron like you would piss all over youself if someone went out of their way to disrupt things on this site. Your mental masturbation on that site---and the re-posting of it here- -replete with the same allusions to the President's sex life, makes it obvious that once again, we have a doomlit with a credibility problem.

And after reading your posts, I am left to wonder if : --you are playing on daddy's computer or are you at work posting this drivel on company time?

Your doom-validating posts still illustrate nothing except your penchant to search for trash disguised as news and post it to adoring pea-brain fans.

Let me ask you some rhetorical questions that a low-intellect like yourself can possibly answer:

--who is Paul Milne?

--does he have some agenda with regards to y2k?

--does he have a track record of past predictions?

Just wondering. Of course, in your 'mind', none of that would matter anyway, right?

Finally, no need to tell the public where your nose is, snooze muffin.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 15, 1999.

B.C.

There's no need to get hostile with snooze, he's got his opinion and you've got yours. In no time at all we're going to find out who was more correct and to what degree....we're all hoping you're right, so let's be civil whilst we wait, eh?

-- Choirboy (choirboy@hellzchoir.edu), December 15, 1999.

Remember the 99% and (7% figures are read by a president who admitted he was challenged to use computers. He believes what he is told. The figures are from others equally clueless. N oconspiracy-only stupidity. Poor Bill will be the most suprised of all if TSHTF.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 15, 1999.

Choirboy, let me explain. This scumbag shows up on the debunking site with numerous spam threads and numerous crude references. I don't know. Maybe he's blown a mental gasket or is spoiling for a fight.

Within the context of y2k, bring it on.

I look forward to watching the miniscule mind, that delves into bathroom humor other 7th graders enjoy, explain his glumness and 'factual' news threads.

Regards.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 15, 1999.

Noone, this isn't about the President. I mean, does anyone believe anything the government says? I AM astounded by the 99% figure. Doesn't that consistute a virtual guarantee and doesn't that make the government vulnerable to lawsuits?

But come one. I don't belive anything the doomsayer who intersperses his thoughts says either. Why would I?

Track records, experiences....yeah...you know the story

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 15, 1999.

Bad; No it does not make the U.S. government liable to suite The doctrine of soveriegn immunity applies. You can sue only if they say you can. fat chance.

-- Noone (Noone@none.com), December 15, 1999.

Less than 2 years ago either Ed Yardeni or Alan Greenspan assessed the Year2000 issue in the U.S. Government. Almost all departments received a failing grade and most were stated to not be compliant in time for Jan.1st. The IRS was predicted to not be compliant until 2030+!!! But now, December 1999, we are 99.9% compliant?! Who has the magic wand?

-- Shawn (shawnagee@hotmail.com), December 15, 1999.

Agreed, Shawn. I think the DOD was supposed to be ready somewhere near the turn of 2100. But that's a laughable quote in itself, isn't it? Who can concoct such stats?

Hey, I can quote a veritable cornucoppia of governmental spin and mistruth. I don't need Paul Milne or his puppet snnoze muffin to translate for me. And that's the problem with the doom sect. They let the doom translators do all the thinking for them.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 15, 1999.

---

Bad Company... you have mistaken me for someone else, possibly using my handle. Recheck with debunk and have this site confirm it with you. You are terribly wrong. The only time I have visited debunk was this summer when a regular there came here and posted an actual link to a thread there...something of interest at the moment and I followed the link out of curiosity.

Once you have satisfied yourself that I in fact have not been to debunk recently, you can ask a question here in this forum and...

make an appropriate apology.

---

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

snooze button:

If you are waiting for an apology from Bad Company, don't hold your breath. He/she/it is always accusing me of misrepresenting history, I keep asking for just how I am doing it, He/SHe/IT never coughs up anything.

Alas, just another moron from the bonkers site....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), December 16, 1999.

BTW, Bad Company, you don't really live in that backwater in the hills do you? I thought that was California's version of Homer and Jethro.

-- snooze button (alarmclock_2000@yahoo.com), December 16, 1999.

snoozer, if the poster in question is not you, then I gladly make the apology. However, one look at both sites---replete with the SAME references to Clinton's sex life, must be a coupy of your sentiments.

Somehow seemed odd...and suspicious.

As for the King, know this. He has NEVER asked how he misrepresents history, and no apology is forthcoming. Please refer, sir, to your ridiculous---patently ridiculous---analogy to pollys as being akin to people in Nazi Germany who shook their heads as Jews were rounded up and carted away, saying 'well, they're going off to a delousing camp'.

Or was that another figment of my imagination?

And that's just one revisionist idea.

Want some respect? Stand up for your convictions, however deluded they may be. Posting hit and run 'historical facts' that have no basis or hitting the debunky boards to spam and flame...and then to come here and whine as 'pollys' do it...speaks volumes about the mentalities here.

Again, snoozer, if it wasn't you, apologies. If it was, well.....you know what you can do.

-- Bad Company (johnny@shootingstar.com), December 16, 1999.

Government programming coordinator to President Klinton:

"Our staff has completed the 3 years of work on time and on budget. We have gone through every line of code in every program in every system. We have analyzed all databases, all data files, including backups and historic archives, and modified all data to reflect the change. We are proud to report that we have completed the "Y-to-K" date change mission, and have now implemented all changes to all programs and all data to reflect the following new standards: Januark, Februark, March, April, Mak, June, Julk, August, September, October, November, December and... Sundak, Mondak, Tuesdak, Wednesdak, Thursdak, Fridak, Saturdak I trust that this is satisfactory, because to be honest, none of this Y to K problem has made any sense to me. But I understand it is a global problem, and our team is glad to help in any way possible. And what does the year 2000 have to do with it? Speaking of which, what do you think we ought to do next year when the two digit year rolls over from 99 to 00? We'll await your direction."

-- Lurker (eye@spy.net), December 16, 1999.

Yes you've let Clinton get away with murder literally as well as metaphorically not once but at least 25 times, how can this happen in "modern day America".

-- SIRAH (richard.dale@unum.co.uk), December 17, 1999.