I don't want to step on toes here, though I am sure I will...

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

There seems to be a rash of posts about "disaster" and "mishaps". Now I have clicked on many of them and have yet to find a link to Y2K. I would appreciate it if more research and thought were put into these posts and at least SOME link to Y2K were proffered. It seems that some folks are really scrambling to find SOMETHING , ANYTHING to pin on a Y2K mishap.

Now, this doesn't mean that these stories are NOT linked, but as I read I also look for follow-ups and I STILL haven't seen a link to Y2K. I'm starting to pan right past these items.

Thank heavens that the Bhopal disaster and the Exxon Valdez didn't occur after Y2K......

thoughtfully yours,

Ynott

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 06, 2000

Answers

So, looking down at my toes, "You're positive those 4 chemical disasters reported tonight in about the last 20 threads are NOT Y2K related?" Oh, I'm so glad!! Cause I'm not used to reading about so many chemical plants having problems all at one time!! And you're right, Bhopal and Exxon Valdez did occur on the same day.

Sleep tight tonight!! Hope you live near near a chemical plant!!

-- Psychotic (y2k@19100@2900.com), January 06, 2000.


Psychotic, apt handle. You can see conspiracies and tragedies, disasters and mishaps every day of the week. And no, Bhopal and The Exxon Valdez were not related (you really ARE psychotic, if you think that!)...Ever heard of coincidence? Nah....Did you do your homework and track the chemical foul ups BEFORE Y2K? Care to show a little of your data?

I never said that these didn't have anything to do with a Y2K glitch. I asked for evidentiary support. Nah nee nah nee boo boo, does not suffice. If you don't start supporting these wild accusations, this forum will rapidly lose all of its members as it will run the risk of becoming nothing but a bleating, wailing, disasters are us forum. That is NOT why most of us came here.

I believe that there were/are Y2K glitches. I believe that they will be hard to determine. So, what? You want to quit trying and just go with the idea that EVERY SINGLE MISHAP OCCURRING ON THE EARTH is a Y2K Glitch? You lost me psychotic......You lost alot of us.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 06, 2000.


Nice try, Ynott, I'm with you 100%, but prepare to have "YOU DON'T SEE THE PATTERNS" venom spat at you.

I'm going to stick with this forum, but I agree, it looks as though there are people trying to fill the media silence with speculation. Fine, but don't present it as facts, or insights into a deeper mystery that mere mortals cannot fathom. It's not hard to put "OT" or even "Anecdote" or "Speculative" in the subject line.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.


Ynot, Many on this forum share your concern. Most of us want to hear the truth about failures. There is only one problem, Because of the Fed law regarding Y2K legal matters, and the Insurance Industries stand on Y2K claims, no business in their right mind will admit to a problem associated with Y2K. IT WOULD BE PLAIN FOOLISHNESS TO DO SO. In light of that, it seems prudent for those of us really concerned about the REAL impact of Y2K to post any reasonable failure that seems to be of a Y2K nature. It may take weeks or months of trend analysis to determine if real failures have increased because of Y2K.

-- Shockwave (VISSION441@AOL.COM), January 06, 2000.

Ynott, Thank you, glad you like my handle! You're right, 4 posts in one evening about people getting killed and seriously hurt in chemical plant disasters is Off Topic. Sysops: Please delete those threads!!

Sleep tight, Knott...hope you live near a chemical plant.

-- Psychotic (y2k@19100&2900.com), January 06, 2000.



I vote that Ynott be the official verifyer. If something happens, we can give Ynott the info and then he/she can allow us the privelege of coming back and hearing whether or not it is connected. Assume nothing until the verifyer has make determination. Nothing is Y2K, nothing is Y2K... Whew, this place is getting to me.

-- Rob (maxovrdrv51@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Why take it so personally, Psychotic? It's precisely this "agenda" posting that makes us sceptics tend to discount otherwise valuable news. "I hope you live near a chemical plant"? What, you want people to die horribly just to prove how big your... insight... is?

Mind you, I'd like to reduce my support of Ynott to approximately 81.3% after his response to the Saturn production "glitch" posted below. I don't see a bunch of one off happenstances being comprable to an identical 12 day freeze in two different locations. It's quite a jump from Just In Time to a 12 day drought.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.


Ynott

I don't remember how long you have been at this forum, but having been here over a year myself, I know that these sort of things have always been reported here. And have always been speculated on. Nothing new here.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), January 06, 2000.


Now I'm back to 94.72% approval of Ynott after reading the Saturn story. It's not even an "impending inconvenience" event.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.

The question is this:

ok, ok, ok, lets say all the problems posted on this forum are all Y2K glitches. What are we doing here? Trying to prove a point?

Have any postings been life threatening?

Y2k caused me to prepare to protect my family.

I swear, I've never seen a group more worried about proving they were right, verses posting a problem that could be life threatening.

Because of all the childish bullshit that is posted to forums such as this, I am starting to tell people I never prepared.

I'm embarrassed.

1. Hey, did you hear about the car stalled in the middle of the street? Think is was Y2K related? 2. Hey, did you hear about the lightbulb that was always on at the hubber's house, now its out? Think it was Y2K related? 3. Hey, did you hear about the train that didn't run at 0600? Think it was Y2K related? 4. Hey, did you hear about the airplane that did an emergency landing? Don't know for sure, but I think it was Y2K related?

Hey, did we win yet?

-- cork (corcorab@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.



Ynott's right. She (I believe) has always given us great intel out of EUSURA and of Italy in general. Hell, if anyone could make a decent call, I'd leave it TO Ynott, as she's located in one of the worst-rated Y2K readiness wise countries in NATO. Psychotic, go back to sleep, and don't forget the meds...

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@Aol.com), January 06, 2000.

Ynott,

I just posted this to answer your response to one of Carl's posts, but I thought I'd copy it here to directly respond to your own post:

Ynott, Since it now seems to me quite likely that we are all probably not going to die a slow horrible death in the cold clinging to the last few traces of warmth from a heating grate, I am now interested in seeing if any patterns emerge from these incidents and the media's reporting of them. So for myself I find these postings quite useful, though I am far from leaping to the conclusion that they are all automatically Y2K related. Sadly I think, to be objective about this, I will have to suspend my own judgement on all of these reports and just wait and see if a broader picture emerges. Until (or IF) litigation starts in the next few months regarding some of these mishaps we will likely not have any clue whatsoever whether or not these incidents have anything at all to do with Y2K, and since there does not seem to have been a "Daily Industrial Disaster Forum" online prior to the rollover, we really have nothing to compare it to. Are more incidents of this nature occuring post 1-1-2000? Who knows? I for one am very interested in hearing ANY news that MAY be related though: I invested a lot of time and energy in prepping and I would like to see whether it was all for naught.

John Ludi

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), January 06, 2000.


Bob, I too have been here over a year. Due to flaming, I did not post all of my questions during the Y2K "heyday". Afterwards, I was told by several folks here, that I should have. Today's responses indicate why many do not.

Asking for verification is not new. None of your responses have offered any. You can say "wow" whole lotta spills and mishaps to your hearts content, but that is not verification. I am not the verifier. The folks on this forum are. You underestimate their intelligence to feel that "so many posts MUST indicate SOMETHING"! And yes, I saw all of this BEFORE Y2K (the event) too....Seems to me that all of that smoke indicated NOTHING! You do recall that 1/1/2000 was met with no blackouts or major cataclysms anywhere....gee, what a coincidence...must mean SOMETHING! Sure does, means that if you go looking for glitches you will find them, whether they are there or not.

You can't argue with facts. What part of the chemical plant disaster was Y2K affected? Exactly what components could have been involved to create these tragedies...were they the same ones? From the same area of the plants? Did they occur simultaneously? What code or suspected embedded systems were involved. Inquiring minds want to know. If you don't...then you are just another ambulance chaser.....

I understand spin control, insurance problems, etc....doesn't stop me from wanting verification. Somebody on this forum suggested that the insurance companies don't want to pay off on these Y2K glitches (because they don't HAVE to), so they will be doing alot of investigating into these mishaps and disasters...makes sense to me. Let's watch the insurance investigators go to town....Or perhaps some of you computer jockeys and folks at the plants can discover something?

Another person on this forum suggested meeting with the folks at the plant via coffee houses, gas stations, etc...sounds good to me too. Go and ask....But gee, the stories look SO COINCIDENTAL is not a fact.

I knew I would be stepping on toes.....sorry for wanting more information. Perhaps I too should just shut my eyes, leap in and scream , "IT'S THERE, I SEE IT TOO, THE PATTERN, CAN'T YOU SEE HOW OBVIOUS IT IS? THEY ARE ALL COVERING IT UP...." Nah...too easy a cop out. If it's real, time will tell.... Y'all are so ready to jump the gun that you're gonna miss it when it goes off!

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 06, 2000.


Ynott,

I am with you 100%. I also wish people would quit posting the same thing several times.

-- BiGG (superste@antigopro.net), January 06, 2000.


Have any postings been life threatening?

Yup - not only life threatening, but actually fatal.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002F3a

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), January 06, 2000.



Servent, I just like Ynott. He/she is fun to talk to. He likes my handle and I like his too!! "incorruptible" Wow!! I'm sure there are lots of things people can breath besides oxygen, and the people affected by the chemical disasters in those 4 threads just didn't try hard enough. Aren't I right, Ynott? Ynott can breathe other things. This needing oxygen thing is rediculous and getting out of hand. Everyone else ought to be able to, also. Sysops: Delete those chemical plant disaster threads!

Ynott rules!

Thoughtfully yours (just like Ynott!)

-- Psychotic (y2k@19100&3900.com), January 06, 2000.


For whoever asked about it, thank you for your concern, I have taken my meds.

And for the general viewing public on this forum, and all those posters who day in and day out post truly terrific information....I really WOULD feel bad if Ynott was hit by a chemical plant.

-- Psychotic (y2k@19100&3900.com), January 06, 2000.


Bob, are you saying the leak was because of a faulty chip?

-- cork (corcorab@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Cork - nope... how the hell would I know? Are you saying it wasn't? I agree that verification would be ideal, but how likely are we to get it? I'll give you a personal example. I have lived 3/4 of a mile from the Reddy Ice plant for the past 10 years. I read the newspaper daily... religously. I had never heard about the prior leaks, let alone what the final investigation revealed the cause to be. I guess since no one died in the two prior leaks, or the fact that they were much smaller, it was not considered newsworthy. What do you think the odds are that the cause of this particular leak will be splashed across the local papers weeks from now when the cause is determined? They might, but only because it caused a fatality. But most often, the public is never informed.

It doesn't bother me when people post these kind of things... I have the option of wether to read them or not. Beats the hell outta chemtrails.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), January 06, 2000.


Whatever; it probably doesn't matter much. Unless I miss my guess, there's still a plethora of "believers" in this forum. Belief that we're still screwed, belief that nothing will go wrong.

Those of us in the middle, prepared to believe IF AND WHEN we see credible evidence, still seem to be in the minority. And that's a damn shame. It's hard to lambaste the press for being biased when the same "judge first, ask for evidence later" attitude is so prevalent in this forum.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.


Bob, not trying to debate, but every negative thing that strikes the earth is being reported.

I could list 100's of things from the local news where I'm from, fires, accidents, ect.. that go on every week, and have been for years.

Bob, you may be sober minded, but there are people that will never admit this thing was not a national or world problem.

I know, I know, maybe it isn't over, however, With every move that strikes the earth, there is a "Core" that causes a "Cult", they will go to the grave swearing up and down the news media covered it up.

And no matter what, they will try to prove there is a problem.

That is my point. I didn't spend 1000's of dollars because someone found a glitch and fixed it in an hour, and denied it was a y2k problem. I prepared for the worst, the worst didn't happen, and now its over. But I'm ready for the worst.

Get my point? cork

-- cork (corcorab@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.


Hell, if "absolute proof" were the standard, this forum would never have existed at all. Y2K has been nothing but speculation. By these standards, what kind of posts would be allowed now?

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), January 06, 2000.

speculation? Not from what I've read, "I know what I know".

There are feelings being delt with. Sometimes, the only way to deal with them is to believe that the cause you started out to believe in is still in progress.

I had a hard time watching midnight strike and nothing happen but problems with time clocks and minor glitches here and there. But, it was the threat of my family going without. Once I sat back and reflected on why I spent a year and so much money on this thing, I made peace with the entire thing.

Maybe others prepared for something other than the health, care and welfare of their families.

Maybe that is why I don't understand this forum.

One thing is for sure, I am not out trying to prove I was right. cork

-- cork (corcorab@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.


Egad... Did anybody CLOSELY read the newspaper story about the ammonia leak? Notice that the reporter stated that if the leak was due to negligence, the company would have a different level of legal liability than if it was an accident. Now, shift this to Y2K in both the legal and in the insurance coverage realm.

If a company has an accident/failure and it is due to an unremediated Y2K problem 1 - their insurance company can claim that it was an avoidable loss and not pay.

Now PLEASE NOTE: a standard tactic in the insurance industry is to delay payment. It does not matter if the exact same amount of money goes out the door, it is VASTLY more profitable to delay payment. If you know anything about the time value of money and have watched what insurance companies have been doing to the medical services industry for the last few year, you know what I am talking about.

2 - The victim's lawyer, or the lawyer that is trying for a class action suit can claim that since it was Y2K related, it was totally avoidable, and therefore is negligent. Haven't we heard the phrase "paper trail" mentioned on this forum over the last year or so?

If you are looking for honest reporting, you are on the wrong planet.

-- Ken Seger (kenseger@earthlink.net), January 06, 2000.


Ynott,

With all due respect, what you want and what you will be able to get are two entirely different things. Let's look at some of your wish list:

What part of the XXXXXXX was Y2K affected? Exactly what components could have been involved to create these tragedies...were they the same ones? From the same area of the plants? Did they occur simultaneously? What code or suspected embedded systems were involved>

I've modified your statement to reflect ANY of the problems being reported.

Wait for the insurance investigators, you say. We could do that. The results would appear in some obscure entry in a court decision, one that would never even be referenced in the media because no one will be interested in Y2K in the year 2015 when it's resolved. OBE.

You're asking this forum to converge on every accident reported in the media, to jump over the yellow tape and disappear into smoldering buildings or dive into toxic clouds in order to come up with links to Y2k -- and if we can't establish these to your satisfaction, not to post. Won't happen, and you know it when you're honest.

I'm frustrated, too. When the DOD has to be beaten about the head and shoulders to admit that the loss of a spy satellite was Y2K related you begin to see what we're up against. Should they have shouted that from the rooftops? No way.......they should have kept it quiet, and they did. But, understand, too, that every company that may suffer a malfunction is now under the gun. If anyone admits to Y2k any loss falls on the company, but otherwise they MIGHT be able to collect on insurance. And, when lives are involved, the tab is high.

Is there a solution? Yes -- report the incidents. Review the incidents that are reported. Be sceptical. Think for yourself -- because in the end of all of this each one of us must be responsible for our own actions, just as we were when we did/did not prepare.

Hey, look, there are going to be some who believe that every little malfunction is Y2K related, and there will be some who wouldn't believe anything is Y2K related. Most of us are searching....mainly trying to see if things might be getting worse. That's all we can do.

BTW, none of us will ever know the answer. As long as we accept that fact, we're OK. When we think we have all the answers we're in trouble.

-- rocky (rknolls@no.spam), January 06, 2000.


Ynot: why are you trying to censure this forum?

What's wrong with people speculating about news items?

I'm able to make up my own mind and form my own opinions.

You are concerned about *others* forming the *wrong* opinions. You've stated it. Over and over and over again. We get the point.

I for one find it annoying.

-- Sheila (sross@bconnex.net), January 06, 2000.


My Goodness, but it appears that I did indeed step on a few toes. Apparently, few of you thoroughly read my posts either. Excuse me, but where did I ask for absolute and total proof of any of the aforementioned news items? All I asked for was a "shred" of "anything" that appeared even "remotely" Y2K related.

I stand corrected. It would seem that many of you will "hitch your glitch" to any news item of note posted here. Some of you are searching for a "pattern" and think that it will "enlighten" all of us with Y2K ramifications. Oh my goodness no. There is a world of difference between correlation and causation. Ask any scientist or engineer (of which I am one). Let's assume for a moment that you hit the bonanza and all of those chemical plants had the same malfunction. "Y2K" you shriek! Well, maybe....then again, maybe the part was ordered from the same company and were all produced with the same flaws. Perhaps that same flaw is waiting to shut down other plants or whatever with the same flaw....maybe (horrors to this forum indeed) the timing was coincidental and there was no relationship to the Y2K issue at all.

My professor in engineering statistics predicted that there would be a shuttle disaster after....so many flights....It was published in our text book...low and behold Challenger blew up right on schedule. Yup and it wasn't Y2K related either. It was a defective O-ring. Yup, manufacturers do make mistakes. The biggest joke in the space program is that the spacecraft are always built by the lowest bidder....Think it is any different in industry?

No, I don't expect to find even a fraction of the Y2K glitches actually reported as such, but this forum is rapidly slipping back to what it was before 1/1/2000. Do you recall what happened then? Folk wanted class action suits against Hyatt, Yourdon, de Jager, etc..some still do. Do you really want to stir the kettle to that point again? I guess you do. Sorry I annoyed you , Sheila. Poor thing, do you know where the scroll button is on your computer dear? I'll be using it alot from now on.

Not everybody here posts "everything that explodes, leaks, breakdowns, etc." . Most here wait and comment on an area that they are familiar with and make intelligent commentary like I was asking for. Some folks just grab every headline that they can and run with it so that they can participate. It is the latter that I am referring to.

If you don't know the difference between an informed poster and what I am talking about here, then I guess we just have another failure to communicate.

Oh--and for those new to the forum...these discussions are quite normal and happen all the time. I am happy this one did not deteriorate to the level of the pre-Y2K flaming wars. I thank you all for your opinions.

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 06, 2000.


While staying home to take care of my son who has the flu this week (probably not Y2K related or chemtrail related), I've spent a considerable amount of time reading and posting on this forum while watching CNN Headline News on TV. As some of you may know, Headline News rolls state news blips at the bottom of the screen throughout the day. I'm wondering why I've not seen any of the incidents Carl has been posting rolling across the screen? Any ideas? One possibility may be that reporting news seems to have become repeating the repeater, press release reporting, not investigative reporting. If I were Manager/CEO/Big Cheese at a chemical plant, etc. that may have experienced a Y2K related failure that caused injury, I certainly wouldn't send out a press release admitting it.

Again, Carl if you are reading this thread, keep up the good work! Ynott, WHY NOT take a chance and draw an inference based on the pattern: If Carl posts something, don't read it. You probably won't get what you claim to want.

-- Lisa (lisadawn@yahoo.com), January 06, 2000.


Ynott,

I do appreciate your position on this issue, but as I implied in my prior post on this thread, I want access to as much information as possible...even if it is hard to tell if it is actually relevant! I take ALL of it with a grain of salt and feel that I am intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions.

John Ludi

-- Ludi (ludi@rollin.com), January 06, 2000.


In my work, I read so-called "scientific evidence" everyday. Since study grants and universities have become so laced with New Age politics, statistics have become loaded and manipulated to those ends. "Facts" are no longer reliable - assumptions, samplings and arrays are constructed to support a politically predetermined decision. As the saying goes, there are "lies, damned lies and statistics." As a result, I am no longer to view science as the best arbitrator. Today, like many other corrupted fields, it has only slightly more credibility than alchemy.

The same goes for reporting of so called "facts." Everyone is spinning or advancing some agenda. Our own President endorses lying. If I choose to highlight a "coincidence," what I believe is a smoking gun, or any other story, I do so because I intuitively suspect a link to y2k or other threat. Intuition is an interesting process where connections are put together subconsciously. The process is given far greater acceptance among other non-techno-centered cultures. In my mind, it can almost be ranked on par with "pseudo-science."

If, in your own mind, you feel that sufficient "facts" have not been presented to support relativity to y2k, feel free to contribute additional information to the thread or do further investigation on your own time. I, for one, would like to hear stories or anecdotal information that other posters find suspicious. I do not want you filtering my "news." I get enough of that already.

As y2k so dramatically pointed out, the biggest casualty of our modern "civilization" has been the truth and honoring those who seek it.

-- anon (anon@anon.anon), January 06, 2000.


Posted on another thread, but applicable here:

I've said it before (as have many others), but I suppose it bears Is the decision to replace a system based solely on Y2K fears? Well, probably not. A company may have other business reasons for introducing new systems. It DOES affect the timing of said implementation, however. Gotta get those ducks in a row before 1/1/00.

Look at Hershey and the SAP debacle as an example. When SAP failed, was it a Y2K glitch? Of course not. But it was Y2K related, I would maintain. Because of the timing of Y2K, Hershey did not necessarily have the luxury of simply reverting to legacy systems,and reworking SAP. The clock was ticking....so the continued to work with SAP. repeating.

Many computer problems pre-2000 as well as post-2000 are the result of the introduction of new systems in response to legacy systems not being prepared for rollover. Companies have options - they can remediate, or they can also replace systems.

No, I wasn't in the meeting room when these decisions were being made, but I have been in the meeting rooms of enough clients to know that many factors go into the decision making process of companies.

And let me tell you, for many companies, Y2K was the 2000 pound gorilla of decision making for the past 3+ years.

Should it have been? I think so. Others might think it was all a hoax. Again, reasonable people can disagree.

So as to a $10,000 error in July of 1999, was it a Y2K error? No, of course not. Was it Y2K related? I don't know, perhaps. Did they put in new systems? Did the put remediated versions into production at that time? Perhaps.

Just as we shouldn't assume a problem is Y2K related, we shouldn't assume it isn't, either.

Year 2000, for me, has always been about a period of heightened possibility for problems:

software Hardware firmware terrorism people's reactions bank runs JIT stock market bubbles viruses etc.

The actual rollover was just one of the hurdles to overcome. Thankfully, we have successfully passed that hurdle. As for me, however, I will continue to remain watchful.

I am not a doomer. I am, and always have been, a pragmatic idealist.

-- Duke1983 (Duke1983@aol.com), January 06, 2000.


Wow! Okay, since I helped start this mess....Ynott, I'll admit, you're right, Bhopal and the Exxon Valdez were not Y2K related. My apologies.

-- Psychotic (y2k@19100&3900.com), January 06, 2000.

"I would appreciate it if more research and thought were put into these posts and at least SOME link to Y2K were proffered."

What percentage of businesses do you think would want to advertise that they have a Y2K problem? It is like having a cybernetically transmitted venereal disease.

How many other businesses are going to want to continue to have "unsafe sex" with a company that has the dreaded Y2K disease? Experts warn us that it can be contagious if data (not bodily fluids) are exchanged.

How many investors are going to be overjoyed that a business has contracted the disease, and rush out to buy more shares of stock? The Y2K disease is not an asset, it is a liability, it is likely to hurt the bottom line of the balance sheets, and could even be fatal.

Get real. Look at the type and number of incidents that are occurring, and try to objectively decipher the truth about what is happening, but don't expect it to be freely revealed to you through the media unless something happens to get leaked by accident.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 06, 2000.


You are all absolutely right. No longer shall we rely on facts. Inuendo is sufficient. We don't need no stinking facts! No relationship either. Post everything and anything that is a mishap Or disaster....no link whatsoever is required. I can intuit the information myself! My telepathy and coincidence reign supreme! For I know ALL...yeah, right....

Okay, I give up. No foundation for reality based reasoning will be found here today. Coincidence be damned. They exist no more. I will label every bad thing happening anywhere in the world (hey, let's add off-world too, what fun) Y2K. It is all suspicious. I see conspiracies everywhere. Careful, look, there's one over there. Duck and cover!

I formally request that we re-name this forum: Paranoid Central, Telepathy and Intuitives Meeting Place, Facts are Not Us, Disasters Central.

Yup, yup, yup, uh huh.....

-- Ynott (Ynott@incorruptible.com), January 07, 2000.


Ynott, You're asking us for facts, and I'm telling you, THEY DO NOT EXIST! I mean on EITHER SIDE! No one is giving us any explanations except that everything that happens is "not Y2K related." If YOU can get FACTS about the causes of these failures, BY ALL MEANS, please let us know, whether it is Y2K or not. We WANT to know!

I realize that this may be difficult for you to believe since you are living in Italy, but believe me, the information which is given to us through American media is TOTALLY CONTROLLED. Call us paranoid, call us conspiracy freaks, I DON'T CARE! You would get paranoid too if no one ever told you the TRUTH about ANYTHING! It is a lot more open and laid back in Italy, so it is hard for you to understand.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), January 07, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ