You've got to read this piece on Doc Gordon's website:

http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/Q&A.html

She sent a number of questions (well, not so much questions as long statements) to John Koskinen, the Y2K czar for the Feds. He amazingly took the time to answer her. His answers, although only about 10% of the verbiage included in the Doc's questions, are telling and do an excellent job of showing how far off the mark she really is. Paula Gordon is really pathetic in her attempts to show that "something is still happening, just wait, any time now.....". Her uses of the Grassroots Information Center and Glitch Central as reference are just....well, read it for yourself. How sad and what a waste of education and talent.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 10, 2000

Answers

Now that is funny... and just a bit sad. How many years before Paula Gordon can move on? Or better phrased... how many more journal articles can she squeeze from Y2K before she has to find a real subject to discuss?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 10, 2000.

Final Report of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion

http://www.y2k.gov/docs/LASTREP3.htm

-- (just@helpin.out), April 10, 2000.

Here's the hotlink [if anyone really wants it.]: Paula and Koskinen

To be honest, Jim, after about the first 10 questions and the lengthy notes Paula made to explain basically that "despite the fact that Koskinen said THIS, MY sources said...", I skipped to Koskinen's replies and read only those. I must say he was EXTREMELY tolerant, and even humorous on one occasion wherein she asked if he would have done anything differently. His response said something resembling "No, I would have STILL responded to stupid questions like yours, which would seem apparent to anyone with a brain."

[disclaimer: The comments in quotes above are NOT representative of the actual quotes made by the participants.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 10, 2000.

Almost got me rolling on the floor! John Koskinen showed a remarkable amount of restraint answering those questions. I would have been tempted to rip Paula Gordon's points to shreds. How Paula Gordon can continue to press on from here is beyond my comprehension.

Here's some highlights that I thought were particularly telling:

[snip] (PG): What is the reason that the ICC has made no mention of the reports around the time of the rollover of the thirty some problems with electric utilities in the U.S.?

JK: I don't know where you're getting your information. No one has established that any problems with utilities were Y2K . The press was all over the place and they did not raise them this issue either. Your sources seem to be operating in the dark, so to speak. [end snip]

[snip]

PG: It is my understanding that considerable effort was made in December of 1999 to convince the nuclear power industry to roll back clocks to 1972 and that this was indeed done. Is this the case?

JK: Not to my knowledge. I have heard nothing about this.

(PG) To what extent did such a roll back take place?

JK: I have no information on this.

PG NOTE (4/4/2000): It is interesting that Mr. Koskinen did not know about these efforts that took place in December of 1999. [end snip]

[snip] JK: As noted, you and a few others are the only remaining people who still are waiting for the fabled embedded chip disasters to occur. The consensus is that, fortunately, the problem was overstated and has not resulted in any major problems. [end snip]

[snip] (PG): If and when the public comes to realize the nature of the public relations campaign that was carried out, will they loose faith in their government?

Will the public believe their government in the future if they come to believe that in the recent past their government chose to only partially inform them concerning the possible threats that we were facing?

What will the implications of such "managing of perceptions" be for addressing future problems that constitute a threat to the public?

If you had it to do all over again, what would you change, if anything, concerning the Council's apparent efforts to shape public perceptions concerning the nature and scope of the problem?

JK: Absolutely not, since your assumption that we were somehow nefariously shaping perceptions is incorrect. We spent significant resources trying to bring facts -- not assertions -- to the public, comfortable that they would respond appropriately to those facts. We did and they did. In the end, the polls all showed that they believed the reports from federal, state and local governments and individual critical infrastructure companies that they were ready for Y2K. And, in the end, to the dismay of some diehards, those reports and facts turned out to be absolutely correct. I think that's what the public will remember about Y2K. [end snip]

[snip] PG: If you had it to do all over again, what would you change, if anything?

JK: Nothing, including all the time I've spent discussing the issue with those who disagreed with our approach and criticized us vigorously, even though, after the fact, we were right and they were wrong. It was an important dialogue and I'd do it again, as shown by the time I'm taking to respond to these questions. [end snip]

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 10, 2000.

Given the 60 Minutes piece (yesterday evening) of misinformation on computer security, SCADA, and control of the power system they will all shortly be on to even bigger and better public displays of ignorance.

Paula is only interesting because of her academic background. Other then that she would just be taken for another crank like Bruce Beach or Shakey (the embedded systems, power-plant, now oil patch expert). Its interesting that she seems to demand specifics from JK but all of her information is nebulous and consists of unsupported references.

One of the great curses of the Internet is that it allows people to scour the world for information. Where a plant explosion in Australia or India would have been largely unreported in the local or national press the information is now easily attainable by everyone. So people become more aware of things that, while they still occurred, they didnt know of before. And if you are of the type of mindset that wants to attribute these failures to Y2K (or any other grand conspiracy) you can.

Its very easy to never be wrong since you can always claim that THEY (and we all know who they are, dont we?) are covering up all the information. It also means that you never have to prove your arguments since, due to the great cover-up, you never can.

I think what sticks in their craw the most is that, even if they can show that X things happened due to Y2K, so what? Nothing happened that had the slightest affect on peoples lives. Any storm, earthquake, flood, that occurs naturally has more effect on people lives then the great Y2K disaster. It always perplexed me that youd read on the old TB about all the people who didnt prepare for these things (many living in high risk areas) yet got into a tizzy about Y2K. In some ways its like the argument over global warming. Somehow it has to be manmade and if it is occurring naturally, wellits just not the same thing.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 10, 2000.

Engineer:

Absolutley correct. This is one of the most telling of Gordon's questions and Koskinen's responses:

PG: It is my understanding that considerable effort was made in December of 1999 to convince the nuclear power industry to roll back clocks to 1972 and that this was indeed done. Is this the case?

JK: Not to my knowledge. I have heard nothing about this.

(PG) To what extent did such a roll back take place?

JK: I have no information on this.

PG NOTE (4/4/2000): It is interesting that Mr. Koskinen did not know about these efforts that took place in December of 1999.

Mr K. never heard about this BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Part of my Y2K work was with the nuclear plant owned by our utility and I was in contact with my counterparts in many other plants across the country. The idea of setting dates back to 1972 was never discussed as a viable option. For heavens sake, there are no DOS computers that will even accept a date before 1980 so how was this rollback supposed to be accomplished? She continues to repeat this legend as if it's fact and then is suprised that Koskinen never heard of it? It's because she and her fellow travelers MADE IT UP!

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 10, 2000.

Jim,

Obviously YOU are part of the cover up. (LOL)

It's one of the "Urban (nee Internet nee Y2K) myths". I honestly don't think Paula made it up but rather something she read or heard of and now fully believes, never mind such inconvient things as facts.

I loved the part about the infrastructure being powered down for the roll over. I don't remember being without heat, or lights (not to mention TV or anything else).

But then I was part of the vast cover up myself.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 10, 2000.

Engineer:

Yep, we're both just a pair of gubmint shills :^)

I'm trying to picture how long I would have kept my job if I said at a Y2K project meeting "OK, how about if just power everthing down for the rollover? No? Well, how about if we just reset everything to 1972? No? Hey, take your hands offa me....."

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 10, 2000.

Because she's an academic, poor Paula has a tiger by the tail. You can produce nonsense "research" for a whole academic career, but you can *never* admit you made a stupid blunder. So she's stuck denying what is prima facie obvious to everyone on earth, on grounds backed by sources which must ultimately remain anonymous since reality itself has discredited them.

So she gambled more than she could possibly afford to lose on a horse that never left the starting gate, and is doomed to a life of trying to claim the horse is still in the running long after the race is over, while those few who still care about y2k laugh at her. And while it may be impolite to laugh, let's face it -- that's all she's good for anymore.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 10, 2000.

Gentlemen, Ladies, please, let it go,
for Paula can not, will not, should not, be stopped.

For she had the facts before her long ago, by Cherri, Flint, myself, and others.  I sent her the only list of documented, verifiable failures found in testing prior to the rollover that I have seen on the Internet.  I'm quite sure she also had these facts: Embedded Systems Revisited .

For the record, I certainly remember in the TB2000 threads some nuts wanting the power plants to roll the clocks back at the last minute, not sure if was just Paula, Paula and NIRS, or some other tinfoil hat wearing guys.

I posted a question for Paula (whom I have corresponded with on several ocassions) on the thread  Oil & Gas Revisted Responses - A reply to Perry, Linkmiester, and Paula Gordon :
"I am curious about one thing, in our private emails, not once did you ever ask me a single question about my experience with working on y2k in the nuclear power industry.  For someone who has such a strong interest in the subject, I find that very interesting, but not suprising - I concluded long ago that you were not the least bit intested in the facts.  Using a source as biased agains nuclear power as NIRS demonstrates that.  A question - are you a member of any  anti-nuclear or environmental organizations?  What is your opinion of the use of nuclear power for electric generation? Just curious.... "

No, Paula never asked any questions from any of us posting here who were working in the nuclear or power industry on y2k, not Dan the Power man, not Malcom, not cl, not me.  She never wanted facts, fiction was what she wanted and got for the fuel for her fire....

Again Paula repeats the  Embedded Systems and Possible Annual Maintenance Scheduling Problems nonsense.  Several good rebuttals in  this thread, but facts won't stop Paula from grabbing rumors, myths, and exagerations.  I have since come to the conclusion that this very polite woman (at least in every single email she has sent me) is not "anti-nuke", nor anti-anything, but rather, a simple case of a nut loose in Acadamia, spilled over to the Internet..  Yes Paula, I do believe you are a nut, but a personable, kinda friendly nut, and I wish you well in endeavors other than Y2K fruitcake baking, and congrats for getting Koskinen to butt his head against the PG wall like the rest of us did, lol :)
 

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 10, 2000.

This thread is so interesting to me, an RN, with just enough "academia" and just enough techie background to be interested in Y2K and reading the likes of Paula Gordon, but obviously being led completely astray and writhing in fears due to my little knowledge.

"a simple case of a nut loose in Acadamia, spilled over to the Internet.. "

Here's an interesting issue for Decker to pick up and start a new thread with. Seems to me that it's not just the pedophiles that are a threat on the internet.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 10, 2000.

What an interesting thread. 'Tis certainly one of the most substantial I've seen on this forum to date.

Here is a quote we might all wish to remember:

"Suppose you picked up this morning's newspaper and your life was a front page headline... And everything they said was accurate... But none of it was true."

From the Kurt Luedtke screenplay for the movie "Absence of Malice (1981), Columbia Pictures

'Just passin' it on.

:)

-- FM (vidprof@aol.com), April 11, 2000.

FM:

That's a pretty cryptic reply. Before I try putting words in your mouth, would you kindly explain what the quote means in relation to Paula's latest?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 11, 2000.

Jim,

Marianne is too busy being clever as a writer to worry about the reader. Hasn't she tried to sell you her book?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), April 11, 2000.

FactFinder,

Re letting it go. Id be more then willing to do that. But I think it goes beyond Y2K, or Nuclear Power. These people are generally anti-technology. Well not quite. They want THEIR microwaves, 500 channel satellite TV, personal computer and Internet connection, etc. They just dont want the technology that produces that technology. I think that you, Jim, and Malcolm realize that we are the ultimate old technology industry. Let ALL of the new technology dot coms are totally dependant on our technology working. Working correctly, day-in, day-out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Yet look at all the hubbub about wireless phones causing brain tumors, GM crops (never mind that it would enable the feeding of a lot of people who dont have enough to eat) or the spread of electricity to third world countries (unless its solar or wind powered of course).

Paula is an easy target. She would be better off admitting her error and then trying to find out why. That would be a useful academic contribution. But even though she lacks the background and the knowledge to understand the facts she thoroughly believes (no make that KNOWS) that she is correct.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 11, 2000.

Engineer:

Yes, it's just not sexy being part of "old-time" industry is it? As you say, though, we would be missed pretty quickly if we weren't doing our jobs right.

I think that FactFinder is saying that no matter what we do, Paula's train is on her own track and she keeps laying new track as she goes along. When I first read her material I thought she was an academic trying to make sense out of technical material and just having a difficult time understanding. Like FactFinder, I had several e-mails from here regarding other things I posted on the old TB2000 and she was unfailingly polite and thoughtful. After reading the Koskinen interview, I realize that my initial impressions of her were wrong. She is operating completely on her own agenda and any facts that are at odds with that agenda are disregarded. As Flint pointed out, she picked the wrong horse in the race and now feels compelled to continue to attempt to revive the dead horse.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 11, 2000.

Jim,

Yes, youre right. I dont know what her objective is and Im not sure that she does either. I thought in the beginning that she wanted to be someone let in the inner circle. She wanted to be on the panels, go to the meetings, and have an office in the West Wing. That, or be a pundit. Or maybe that and then become a pundit writing articles for the Op Ed pages of the NYT. Since non of that happened I dont know what her objective is now. Maybe to prove she wasnt wrong.

The problem is they dont know what they dont know. They are operating on the belief that they do know. And while you can argue with facts you cant argue with beliefs. Especially techo-beliefs.

To slightly change the subject did you see the 60 Minutes program on Sunday (9th). I am surprised that there hasnt been more written about that. I also noticed they didnt have any technical people on the show.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 11, 2000.

Engineer:

Paula Gordon's stated objective can be found in the Endnote of the Q&A piece:

"This exchange has been helpful to me and I hope it will be of help to others who are continuing to try to make sense of what has happened and what is happening now. I hope as a consequence that more positive energy might be directed toward ongoing efforts that are needed. I hope that people will become acquainted with sources of information and other materials that will help advance their understanding. Increasing understanding on all fronts seems key to increasing our capacity to address current as well as future challenges."

She provides some sources of "information and other materials" in the Questions and Responses piece in the references and the lengthy appendices.

Re the question raised about the meaning of FM's quote from "Absence of Malice":

"Suppose you picked up this morning's newspaper and your life was a front page headline... And everything they said was accurate... But none of it was true...."

Maybe, just maybe, FM posted that quote by way of pointing out that while a critique of a person or what they have done or tried to do may "appear" to be accurate on the surface, that that critique may have no relationship to the truth....

Two closing thoughts:

Just because something may be difficult to believe doesn't mean that it is untrue.

Anyone who spends 25 years working in and around government in Washington has got to have learned something.

-- abdc (abdc@abdc.cum), April 12, 2000.

abdc:

She is trying to make sense out what happened? What exactly did happen? That's her problem. Nothing happened and she thinks something should have. The rest of us have moved on with our lives - she continues to look for dark mysteries.

She hopes people will become "acquainted with sources of information and other materials that will help advance their understanding"? That's hard to do when all her "sources" that disagree with Koskinen are secret.

She always provides lengthy appendices and references. Unfortunately, most have nothing to do with any of the material in her articles. Do you think the Grassroots Information Center and Gitch Central are references than any other professional researcher would use?

Can you please explain to me how an accurate accounting of a persons actions and behavior can also be untrue?

I have two closing thoughts also.

Things that are hard to believe are almost always hard to believe because they're not true. There are very few truths that the majority of people would find hard to believe.

Anyone who has spent 25 years in Washington has learned how to work the system.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 12, 2000.

Abdc,

Loved your email address. Are you any relation to the King of Spain, by the way?

I didnt ask what her stated objective was, but what her objective was. Somehow I am a bit skeptical about what she says and what the reality of it is.

And Im not sure how you can understand what happened when you dont understand the technology. You need to understand the technology before you can understand why nothing happened. Paula doesnt understand and doesnt want to understand.

Re your quote: Just because something may be difficult to believe doesn't mean that it is untrue. Thats a good description of Quantum Mechanics. However I think as far as Y2K is concerned it should be more directed at Paula rather then to try and defend her. As hard to believe it, nothing much happened.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 12, 2000.

Engineer, Jim provided an excellent interpretation of my points regarding Paula Gordon and y2k assessment, of which you indicated you could see in your later threads.

She remains a mystery to me as far as intent goes, such a nice lady (at least on the surface, and I assume that it goes deep until proven otherwise), but at the same time intentionally choosing the rumors over facts, the doom over the reality, and pushing garbage labeled as "education". There are many mysteries to life, this is one of them, but I certainly won't loose any sleep over this one.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), April 12, 2000.

Jim Cooke is obviously too lazy to find out who Kurt Luedtke is.

Ken Decker is obviously not busy enough with his "Town Manager's job" in Hampstead, Maryland. Otherwise, how would he possibly have time to post on this or any other thread on any forum?

http://www.carr.org/hampstead/page15.html

Could it be that they are one and the same?

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

-- They (are@pompous.asses), April 12, 2000.

Jim, you state "Things that are hard to believe are almost always hard to believe because they're not true." Do you wanna take a gander at a couple of things? I read asbestos was once used as a filler, for gum surgery dressing. I read this as totally bogus crap until I asked someone who had been in the dentistry industry a loooong time. They said "yes", the asbestos helped the dressing adhere to the gums. I did not dream this up, nor had the information "Trench" person, put two and five together. You want to go into some of the other areas that are just too unreal to be believed, such as Fluoride in your daily life, by a miscalculation, and why does the government care about about ones teeth when thousands ( millions?) die because they can't afford the prescription drugs (don't get me started).

-- Stranger things (th@ntheeyecansee.com), April 12, 2000.

"...I loved the part about the infrastructure being powered down for the roll over. I don't remember being without heat, or lights (not to mention TV or anything else).

But then I was part of the vast cover up myself."

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 10, 2000.

Perhaps a minor point, but there were a few nuclear power plants that did reduce power for the rollover:

From http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/DAILY/991231pr.htm

PEACH BOTTOM 2 WILL MAINTAIN REDUCED POWER THROUGH Y2K TRANSITION (70%)

PEACH BOTTOM 3 WILL MAINTAIN REDUCED POWER THROUGH Y2K TRANSITION (70%)

GRAND GULF 1 REDUCED POWER THROUGH Y2K TRANSITION (80%)

RIVER BEND 1 REDUCED POWER THROUGH Y2K TRANSITION (90%)

WATERFORD 3 REDUCED POWER THROUGH Y2K TRANSITION (75%)

Perhaps some will say this is a reduction in anticipation of reduced demand. If so, why not say so, instead of the reference to Y2K transition?

BTW, I do not post this as an anti-nuc freak. I have no problem with nuclear power as long as it is properly handled. I post it simply because this information was available (thanks, NRC), while conventional power plant information was not.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), April 12, 2000.

Stranger Things:

Since things like the uses of asbesetos before the dangers were known are historically recorded facts, it's only hard to believe if you don't look it up.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Sorry. Hit the submit key too soon

Stranger Things: Since things like the uses of asbestos before the dangers were known are historically recorded facts, it's only hard to believe if you don't look it up. Why would you assume that anything is either true or untrue without verifying the claim?

I don't understand what point you're trying to make about flouridation and how it's related to the issue of prescription drugs for the poor.

Spindoc,

Operating the nuclear plants at reduced power was part of the rollover plan. If there was a significant power loss, you can bring both nuclear and hydro up to peak power a lot faster than fossil plants. If I remember correctly, this whole plan was detailed by NERC in September. As for the use of the term "Y2K transition", that's just we all agreed to call it. Engineers love standard terms :^)

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Jim,

Thanks for your response. But I'm still puzzled. If NERC stated that there was no cause for concern prior to the rollover, why reduce power? Seems contradictory to me. It seems that there were in fact some people in the power industry who were concerned enough to order a power-down, while at the same time telling the rest of us that there was nothing to worry about. How do you explain this?

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

Spindoc,

First, no plant was powered down. That term has a specific meaning in the power industry and indicates a plant was producing no power. None of the plants you listed were powered down, they were operating at reduced power.

The industry had government-mandated contigency plans. Most of us in the business felt reducing power was not needed but NERC felt this was prudent based on reassuring the public were "doing" something. That's the same reason we activated command centers where a lot of people got paid overtime to sit around and eat donuts. A lot of what was done was for public consumption so that they'd know we were on top of things.

No one knew with 100% certainty that there would be no problems but all the government and industry updates from September on stated that any problems were likely to minor. Our assumption that even moderate problems wouldn't lead to more than an eight hour power loss. I have yet to see one thing from the industry that expected more. However, if you chose to read into every detail of industry preps that this was indicative of not being told the truth then I'm not suprised you're still confused about this.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

OK, Jim,

Let me get this right. You seem to be saying that several of the power industrys nuclear plants powered down...uh, sorry, REDUCED POWER because NERC felt this was prudent based on reassuring the public were "doing" something.

Are you saying that a few multi-million dollar nuclear power plants reduced power for the rollover as a publicity stunt? As a PR stunt to appease the public? Really?

This is asserted in the same breath as your follow-on statement: No one knew with 100% certainty that there would be no problems but all the government and industry updates from September on stated that any problems were likely to minor.

Huh? We, the great unwashed, were told by Koskinen et. al that such National grid problems were as likely as you state, but local problems might be cause for concern. Well, my local power plant is my local concern, and if on DEC 31 1999, it reduces power for Y2K, should I not assume that the power companies in general consider Y2K a valid threat? Can you see the disconnect here? Should I consider my local power provider as over-reacting?

Finally, you said: if you chose to read into every detail of industry preps that this was indicative of not being told the truth then I'm not suprised you're still confused about this.

Again, this is exactly what Koskinen recommended that people on the local level do: ask our local service providers what their status was, and ask what specific contingency plans were they making. Now, if they say one thing (no problems) and do another (reduce power, just in case), what do you expect us poor peons to think? Do you believe that this behavior engendered trust in what they say was true?

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), April 15, 2000.

Spindoc:

There were two things happening in Y2K - public perception and actual remediation. What would your response have beeen if, when asked about contingency plans, we said "Oh, we don't need any because were sure everything will be OK"? I suspect that we would have taken a drubbing in the press and at the hands of the public because the perception was there just HAD to be some problems. Therefore, contingency plans were made based on local power losses. The reduced power in a local plant would have made no difference in your area because the plant could have ramped up quickly and/or you could have received more power through the grid.

I'm assuming that you're asking these questions based on your level of personal preps. Did you prepare for 24 hours of power loss? If so, good, because that can happen at any time for any number of reasons. Was if for a three day outage? Maybe a little overboard but still not unreasonable. Was it for longer than that? If so, there was no information from any source I ever saw with industry knowledge that thought that was probable.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 15, 2000.