Quotably Quoted - What the 2/99 Senate Report Really Said...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM (2/24/99) - Prepared by U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem - Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), Chairman.

[Note: Two days prior to the release of this report, Senator Bennett stated on national television that those who suggest that it will be nothing more than a bump in the road are simply misinformed.]

GENERAL REMARKS. The Y2K problem is very real andY2K risk management efforts must be increased to avert serious disruptions The question is not will there be disruptions, but how severe the disruptions will be Leadership at the highest levels is lacking Many organizations critical to Americans safety and well-being are still not fully engaged in finding a solution National emergency and security planning for Y2K-related systems failures is just beginning. FEMA contingency plans are in draft form, but there is no national strategic plan to assure that critical infrastructures will continue to function.

The interdependent nature of technology systems makes the severity of possible problems difficult to predict. Adding to the confusion, there are still very few overall Y2K technology compliance assessments of infrastructure or industry sectors. Consequently, the fundamental questions of risk and personal preparedness cannot be answered at this time The Committeestill cannot conclusively determine how extensive the Y2K disruptions will be. Self-reporting has yielded unreliable assessments for most industry sectors. With few exceptions, disclosure of Y2K compliance is poor Unfortunately, the results of many surveys have been kept from public and Special Committee view... Despite an SEC rule requiring Y2K disclosure of public corporations, companies are reluctant to report poor compliance levels Senate hearings, interviews, and research have not produced convincing evidence that the Y2K problem is well in hand.

UTILITIES. According to NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council), only about 50% of the utilities had completed Y2K remediation as of December 1998. [Note, the Senate report misrepresented NERCs data which stated that only 44% of overall SYSTEMS were (self-reported) as ready, not that 44% of the plants were ready.]

The highly interconnected nature of the grids raises concern about cascading failures The interconnectedness makes the grid fragile and susceptible to Y2K disruptions. An outage in one part of the grid can cascade causing ripple effects on other parts of the grid. For example, a generation plant could go out in Maine, affecting power in Florida Nuclear facilities [which supply 40% of power east of the Mississippi] are lagging behind other electric facilities in their Y2K assessment and remediation efforts... While these problems [at nuclear facilities] should not affect plant safety, they could cause serious electricity production problems.

There are no comprehensive studies concerning the number of entities that would have to fail to put the entire grid at risk, but some experts suggest that it may be a very small percentage if in key locations. While complete power grid failure and prolonged blackout is highly unlikely, failure of at least some parts of the electric power industry, e.g., local or regional outages, is possible. [Note: this statement did not rule out nationwide blackouts, just prolonged ones. It also did not address the issue of fuel shortages or cyberterrorism which the report acknowledged elsewhere in the document as potential problems. Nor did it address the issue of reliance on the grid, and the resulting problems of the loss of nuclear or other plants from the systems capacity. Nor did it address the problem that it was not possible to fully test embedded systems prior to rollover. It also ignored NERCs recommendation at that time that contingency planning anticipate the possibility of a common mode failure which, by definition, would result in widespread problem outages, for which NERC believed that power rationing - such as damaging brownouts or rolling blackouts - may be necessary.]

OIL AND NATURAL GAS. Compliance among oil and natural gas utilities is also progressing slowly. A survey by the Committeeindicates a lack of contingency planning, overly optimistic assertions that compliance will be complete, and a lack of knowledge about suppliers Y2K status Y2K remediation in the gas and oil sector began too late and is progressing too slowly Most of the critical systems in this industry are still in the inventory and assessment phase, leaving little time for the more difficult phases of Y2K remediation and testing. As a result, the industry is not likely to complete repairs of all of its systems in time, which in turn means that disruptions in the production, transportation, and distribution of gas and oil are possible The U.S. gets nearly 50 percent of its oil from imports, and several key oil producing countries are behind in their Y2K remediation efforts. If these countries are unable to sustain the level of imports because of Y2K failures in the pumping, refining, or transportation of crude oil, the implications on the price of gasoline may be significant.

HEALTH CARE. Y2K could put the healthcare industry in intensive care The health care industry lags significantly in its Y2K preparations compared to other sectors. 90% of doctors offices have yet to address the problem 64% of hospitals - primarily smaller hospitals - have no plans to test their remediation efforts.

BUSINESS. Many small- and medium-sized businesses are extremely unprepared for Y2K disruptions. As businesses review their supply chains for Y2K preparedness, we will see a flight to quality Over 80% of small businesses are potentially exposed to Y2K problems 40%do not plan to take any action Medium-sized business may actually face the greatest overall Y2K exposure. Manual processing may no longer present a viable option for medium-sized businesses. They may also lack the appropriate resources to remediate affected systems and devices. Given that small and medium-sized businesses provide over 51% of the private sector output, the lack of action on their part may translate into a larger ripple that moves through the loosely linked supply chain.

The Gartner Groups predictions, by industry, of the percentage of companies likely to experience at least one mission-critical failure (a business interruption that could affect revenue and likely affect the continued operation of that business):

15% (insurance, investment services, banking, pharmaceuticals, computer manufacturing);

33% (heavy equipment, aerospace, medical equipment, software, semiconductor, telecom, retail, discrete manufacturing, publishing, biotechnology, consulting);

50% (chemical processing, transportation, power, natural gas, water, oil, law practices, medical practices, construction, transportation, pulp & paper, ocean shipping, hospitality, broadcast news, television, law enforcement);

66% (education, healthcare, government agencies, farming & agriculture, food processing, construction, city & town municipal services).

TRANSPORTATION. The transportation sector is the linchpin for just-in-time inventory management across most every sector. The Y2K readiness of this sector is critical to our global economy On average, the nations 670 domestic airports started Y2K compliance too late. The FAAhas a long way to go to be ready for Y2K and remains at risk. The situation with international air traffic control and airports is much more severe. The maritime shipping industry has not moved aggressively toward compliance. Disruptions to global trade are highly likely Public transit could be seriously disrupted.

GLOBAL. The biggest Y2K impact may occur internationally The U.S. is dependent on a healthy global economy Many [countries] have not even begun to address the problem. Thus, we should remain very skeptical about our ability to buy or sell goods from certain parts of the world Several U.S. trading partners are severely behind in their Y2K remediation. Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom have consistently appeared on the top of preparedness lists With the main exception of the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Scandinavia, European countries have taken a strikingly relaxed attitude to Y2K The situation in Russia and China is even worse than in Europe... Venezuela and Saudi Arabia (two of the largest U.S. oil importers) are 12 to 18 months behind the U.S. in their Y2K remediation efforts. [The CEO of SunMicrosystems had recently announced that Asia was so far behind, he expected it to affect Suns ability to manufacture computers next year. Brazil, which produces most of our ball bearings, was threatened with economic collapse at that time. Euro conversion and economic turmoil in foreign countries were distracting those countries from Y2K efforts.]

-- Whatever (who@car.es), June 06, 2000




This report KILLED the DOOM PROFITEERS. The Public decided "things wouldn't be so bad" and the report was STALE when released.

"Cory Varian" started a thread in May complaining and asking if Y2k business was "off" to confirm a call he had with another Saviour, Saint Michael of LoserWire. He and others said it was.

THIS WAS ** OUT OF DATE ** when released. Bennett and Dodd later confirmed that one of their problems was the "delay" in reporting from the assorted agencies. Even in November, the GAO was dated vs. the reports of others at the Horn Hearings.

NOV. 1999 GAO Per Usual Behind the Learning Curve

From the one Agency that Horn, Bennett and the rest knew was *behind* in its ability to report *Current Status* time and time again in Y2k CDC problems the GAO

Joel Willemssen
 Director, Civil Agencies Information Systems, U.S. General Accounting Office

AS FOR THIS: INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM (2/24/99) - Prepared by U.S. Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem - Senator Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah), Chairman. [Note: Two days prior to the release of this report, Senator Bennett stated on national television that those who suggest that it will be nothing more than a bump in the road are simply misinformed.]


-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 06, 2000.

Charlie, sweetie, your hypertensive rantings don't change the fact that this was the official government report at the time that many of us had to make a decision as to how far we should prepare. I never questioned there would be far better information available by the end of the year, but neither did I question that it would have been irresponsible to my family and community to wait that long.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), June 06, 2000.

BBbbbbbut... isn't this the same government that was supposedly covering up Y2K?

That was supposedly preparing an army of black helicopters and white UN buses that were going to take us away?

That was supposedly planning to implement "Marshal Law" on December 28 and make "Klintoon" President for Life??

That was, and still is, supposedly spraying us with deadly chemicals from airplanes??

That supposedly wants to grab our guns, indoctrinate our children into communism, invade our privacy, and send us to American Death Camps??

I just want to make sure you're talking about the same people here.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 06, 2000.

hmmm, I'm unclear on your point. If the report was an honest (if not necessarily accurate) assessment, then it was prudent to prepare. If the report was downplaying what the Senate Committe saw as the possible impacts, then it was prudent to prepare. If the report was nefariously intended to scare us witless, then who was I to shrug off such a well orchestrated national government level PR campaign. Again, it was prudent to prepare.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), June 06, 2000.

Who said it wasn't prudent to prepare?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 06, 2000.

If the 2/99 report is too out of date, then take a look at the Sept. 1999 report:




-- (Sept@of.1999), June 06, 2000.

hmm, why you do, and cpr, and all the others who want new lurkers to this forum to believe that the vast majority of the TB2K'ers were just being silly. We prepared commensurate with the information available at that time. The 2/99 Senate Report is indicative of the most credible and official information available at the time it was released. It is irrelevant that the subsequent reports were far more favorable, we were substantially done preparing by then.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), June 06, 2000.

You didn't answer my question. Who said it wasn't prudent to prepare?

I'm glad someone linked in the Sept. 99 Senate report. Perhaps that is the report for which you said:

It is irrelevant that the subsequent reports were far more favorable, we were substantially done preparing by then.

Indeed, here are some excerpts from this report:

Sensationalists continue to fuel rumors of massive Y2K failures and government conspiracies, while some corporations and nations concerned about their image downplay real Y2K problems. The Committee finds that both extremes are counterproductive, and do not accurately reflect what typifies most Y2K problems. The true extent of Y2K failures will match neither the most optimistic nor the most apocalyptic predictions. Rather, Y2K problems will hit sporadically, based on geography, size of organization, and level of preparedness, and will cause more inconveniences than tragedies.

On Preparedness, it said this:

PERSONAL PREPAREDNESS Communities and individuals should take reasonable steps to prepare for the Year 2000. Consumers are urged to keep copies of financial statements and to ask local banks what efforts are being made toward Y2K compliance. Individuals should research companies' compliance levels before making investment decisions. The Y2K problem has been likened to a winter storm, with the implication that similar preparation is appropriate. With their individual circumstances in mind, Americans should prepare for Y2K based on facts and reasonable predictions about the problem's effects on vital services.

Not so bad, right? Pretty much like what you were saying...

It is irrelevant that the subsequent reports were far more favorable, we were substantially done preparing by then.

So, one would think the responses to the report would be much as you say, some admissions that it won't be so bad, but hey, they didn't know and it's a good thing to have prepared, right?

Think again...

It's not pretty, gang. Not pretty at all...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), September 22, 1999.


Yep, exactly what we've been telling y'all ...

From the trenches, this is the truth:

The CULL SCYTHE will swing.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), September 22, 1999.


How can anyone read this and not think, immediately, we are TOAST.


It won't be as "optimistic" or as "apocolyptic" as stated... Ahem, the opposite of "optimistic" is pessimistic. I never thought things were going to go "apocolyptic" and now that *they* said it wouldn't, I'm beginning to think it will!


Ok,I admit it.It's the Forum that made & keeps me a GI & I need that fix of being scared witless to keep me reverting to la la land.


i think i'm gonna be sick...

I don't know. To me it doesn't sound like they were too happy about a more favorable report.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 06, 2000.

hmm, personally, I was feeling relatively optimistic about the status of the utility industry by the end of last summer, but not so the previous winter, which was the time period I had to arrange for installation of wood stoves and other measures to protect my family. Based on credible information such as the 2/99 Senate Report, I could not afford to wait to see how the variables cited in that report would play out.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), June 06, 2000.

Whatever, You're making the same mistake now that you and other doomers did last year....taking the worst news you could find, and accepting only that, without question. FYI, Bennett was considered by many to be clueless about y2k in 98 and early 99, and the rollover proved that right. He did moderate tremendously in his outlook by the mid 1999 Senate report, and the last were pretty optomstic about y2k.

In early 1999, there were far more "positive" stories about y2k than pessimistic ones. You didn't read them then, you aren't posting them now. History repeats itself;)

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 06, 2000.

More from the September 1999 Senate report.



Potential Y2K problems increase exponentially upon examination of the multiple layers of computer systems, networks and technologies supporting individuals' everyday lives. It is now widely understood that Y2K could affect the lives of individuals, but exactly in what manner is unknown.


While optimism pervades the domestic Y2K outlook, uncertainty with regard to Y2K's impact dictates that preparation is prudent. Individuals and companies must take charge of their own situation by examining the Y2K readiness of the utilities and services that they depend on, and by preparing accordingly.


The Y2K problem still has the potential to be very disruptive, necessitating continued, intensive preparation in the time remaining. Y2K risk management efforts must be increased to avert serious disruptions.

While the Committee has become increasingly confident about U.S. Y2K preparedness, it has become increasingly concerned about international Y2K preparedness. Some of our important trading partners are months behind in addressing the Y2K problem and are not likely to avoid significant disruptions. These disruptions could have adverse economic effects here at home and, in some developing countries, result in requests for humanitarian assistance.


Sectors critical to the safety and well being of Americans, as well as to the economy, have made significant progress in the last eight months; concerns remain in health care, local governments, small business, and education.

Most physicians' offices, many innercity and small rural hospitals, and numerous nursing homes have not fully addressed the Y2K problem. In general, larger firms have grasped how a Y2K failure could severely impact their businesses and are taking steps to remedy the problem. Unfortunately, nearly half of small and medium-sized businesses across all sectors are taking a wait and see approach to Y2K.

Many local governments and some public safety answering points used to process 911 calls remain at risk of Y2K disruptions; as of June 1999, only 37% points were compliant. Most school districts, colleges, and universities are not prepared; surveys this summer indicate that less than one-third were Y2K ready.

Many projected Y2K readiness deadlines are dangerously late.


The international Y2K picture is more disturbing. The Y2K preparations in many countries of economic and strategic importance to the U.S. are inadequate. Of greatest concern are Russia, China, Italy, and several oil producing countries. The Y2K problem has highlighted the economic interdependence of nations. A significant potential exists for the Y2K induced problems of other nations to wash up on our shores whether in the form of recession, lost jobs, or requests for international assistance.


A prolonged, nationwide blackout will almost certainly not occur; that is, the power grid will work. However, local and regional outages remain a distinct possibility depending upon the readiness of the 3,000 utilities serving any given area. Further clouding accurate assessment, only 25% of electric utilities routinely disclose Y2K information to the public, making it difficult for individuals and organizations to get detailed information on "their" utilities. While bulk power producers, including nuclear facilities, are generally well prepared, they still must develop comprehensive contingency plans to prepare for unexpected problems.

Oil and gas companies have made notable advances since the Committee's last report, but continued progress remains essential. Nearly 500 companies do not plan to complete repairs until late 1999, which makes disruption possible for some domestic oil and gas billing, production, transportation, and distribution. In addition, the likelihood of disruption in oil imports is high due to the lack of preparedness in key oilproducing countries. Disruptions could ultimately affect gas prices and availability.


State and local government preparedness remains a concern for the Committee. There is wide variation in the Y2K readiness of the nation's 50 states, 3,066 counties, and 87,000 local jurisdictions. Several states and many local governments lag in Y2K remediation, raising the risk of service disruption. For example, approximately 10 states are not prepared to deliver such critical services as unemployment insurance and other benefit payments. Surveys indicate that 65% of state critical systems were ready as of May 1999, and only 25% of counties reported being ready as of June 1999.


The heavily regulated insurance, investment services, and banking industries are farthest ahead in their efforts; healthcare, oil, education, agriculture, farming, food processing, and the construction industries are lagging behind.


The Committee is greatly concerned about the international Y2K picture. Several countries of strategic and economic importance to the U.S. are severely behind in Y2K remediation efforts. Regions of the world of most concern to the Committee are Eastern Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia and South America. When considering strategic and economic factors, and the status of Y2K remediation efforts within specific countries, the Committee's greatest concerns lie with China, Russia, Italy, and several of the countries from which the U. S. imports oil.

Severe long and short-term disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur. Such disruptions may cause a low-to-moderate downturn in the economy, particularly in those industries that depend on foreign suppliers. In addition, there may be a request for humanitarian relief from developing countries that have not addressed the Y2K problem.


-- (Sept@of.1999), June 07, 2000.

Factfinder, there were many, credible reports of potentially severe problems at the beginning of 1999. The February Senate report is just one of them. That was the period a great many of us were preparing. Our responsibility to our families and communities required that we err on the side of caution if there was any question about the validity of those reports. I would have made different preparations if I had started later in the year. So you misrepresent the decision-making process of myself and a great many others on the old forum. It was irrelevant what later reports would eventually say (although Sept. proves the Senate reports continued to be negative), decisions had to be made on incomplete information.

As far as any "positive" stories that you may have contributed to the discussions, the overbearing arrogance and attempted intimidation of people like The Engineer, and to a lesser extent you, in presenting your "story" did not serve you well, it was not a convincing approach. OTOH, civil participants like Malcolm Taylor and Robert Cook did a good job in getting their message across.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), June 07, 2000.

As far as any "positive" stories that you may have contributed to the discussions, the overbearing arrogance and attempted intimidation of people like The Engineer, and to a lesser extent you, in presenting your "story" did not serve you well, it was not a convincing approach. OTOH, civil participants like Malcolm Taylor and Robert Cook did a good job in getting their message across.

How about Flint? Was he also civil in his approach or do you feel that he too was arrogant and intimidating?

And who said it wasn't prudent to prepare?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 07, 2000.

FYI, Bennett was considered by many to be clueless about y2k in 98 and early 99, and the rollover proved that right.

FactFinder, please fill us in on what you knew about Y2K in 1998 that Senator Bennett and Rep. Stephen Horn's House Y2K committee in Oct. 1998 didn't know.

This is an important point that needs to be addressed in order to bridge the gap between those who were Y2K pessimists and those who were Y2K optimists. What should I have been able to read in 1998 that would have convinced me that the only possible outcome for Y2K was a bump in the road? When in 1998 was this material available?



3. The Year 2000 Status of Basic Infrastructure Services, Including Electricity, Telecommunications, and Water, is Largely Unknown.

No one knows the overall extent of our nation-wide vulnerability to Year 2000 risks, or the extent of our readiness. No assessment across private and public sectors has been undertaken. The President, through his Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, should conduct a broad assessment of the Nations Year 2000 readiness, identifying and assessing the risks to the Nations key economic sectors. This should include risks posed by international linkages and by the failure of critical infrastructure components.

The Presidents Council on the Year 2000 Conversion, headed by Assistant to the President John Koskinen, has established over twenty working groups to focus on distinct sectors of society. The working groups are organized according to important sectors: buildings/real estate, consumer products, defense, education, energy, environment, finance/banking, food supply, health care, other industry, information technology, insurance, international, public benefits, science and technology, small business, social service, state and local services, taxes, telecommunications, transportation, and worker protection (human resources).

The Presidents Council has released very little information about these groups and what they are doing. In any case, they are currently not playing a leadership role in setting out a national strategy for dealing with the most urgent and universal aspect of the problem: power, telecommunications, water, and other essential infrastructure.

Inadequate attention to the Year 2000 problem by electrical utilities is seen as the cause for "potentially major catastrophes," writes a representative of large electrical users. Major industrial power users are "concerned" and "dismayed" that "electrical utilities lag behind other industries" in preparing their computers for the next millennium. The lack of action in the past is most likely to lead to very high costs when the Y2K problem is dealt with on an emergency basis. Public utility commissions in the States must exercise oversight over utilities in their States to ensure that action is taken. The public, State and local governments, Federal department and agencies, Congress, and private organizations must be kept informed as to how critical sectors are progressing. If progress is not made on a steady basis, this might lead to a last-minute panic in hiring those workers who can make the repairs on time. That unplanned effort will lead to higher human resources costs.


-- What did we know and when did (we@know.it), June 08, 2000.

In a set of questions put to John Koskinen(responded to March 22, 2000), Paula Gordon asked a question (#19) concerning the following statement that he made January 27, 2000 in a State Department interview: "It was clear two years ago to me after talking with a lot of experts, if nobody did anything else beyond what they had already done up until two years ago, that the world as we knew it would end." (The Questions and Answers piece is posted at http://www.gwu.edu/~y2k/keypeople/gordon/Q&A.html The January 27 transcript where the quote appears is in the appendices of the Q&A piece.) His response to this question was as follows: "I said that many times and continue to believe it...." I was quite surprised when I read this answer. I followed what he had to say pretty closely from 1998 on and never heard him say anything like that until this January 27th statement.

"What did they think and when did they say it?" may yield as many, if not more, interesting answers as "What did they know and when did they know it?

-- interesting tidbit (Interesting tidbit@searching.cum), June 08, 2000.

John Koskinen and the Prez's Council also had this to say...



There is general agreement that the Year 2000 rollover went more smoothly than expected. The incredible success of the transition has prompted a number of questions about the effort and the results it produced.

Was Y2K an insignificant, over-hyped problem?

In the weeks since the rollover, some have expressed doubt about the magnitude of the Y2K problem and whether or not the significant investment of time and money to avoid disruptions was necessary. However, it has been difficult to find executives who worked on Y2K in a major bank, financial institution, telephone company, electric power company or airline who believe that they did not confront -- and avoid -- a major risk of systemic failure.


-- (March@29.2000), June 09, 2000.

Also see this thread:

"Quotably Quoted #?? - I.B.M. and the Red Cross"


-- (thread@to.thread), June 09, 2000.

And heres more from another thread from 1999:

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

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 09, 2000.

"Again, it was prudent to prepare."

Nonsense if your'e talking about y2k in retrospect! More rationalization for being a doom zombie (or one of the opportunistic leaders). Y2k caused no problems. What did you need your prepartions for? Those who went beyond the normal preps of a week or so were silly.

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 09, 2000.

What did you need your prepartions for? Those who went beyond the normal preps of a week or so were silly.


Many of those who made preparations for Y2K thought a recession or worse was possible as a result of Y2K. With jobs at potential risk, you can see why someone might want to have more savings than usual, more than a week's worth, perhaps enough to cover several months of living expenses.

The potential risk of disruptions in the global suppply chain was also a concern and remained a valid concern even into the fall of 1999. It's why I had much more than a week's worth of coffee, motor oil and canned fruit on hand. If these foreign countries were as far behind as they seemed to be, I could imagine a shortage of some items from abroad lasting far longer than a week.

You probably thought of Y2K as being over with by the time of last year's August NERC report. Yes, by that time it was clear most of the U.S. would have electricity on Jan. 1.

But, I started preparing in late 1998 when the situation was more pessimistic, buying a few canned goods and some bottled water at the supermarket each week. I wanted at least a month's worth of water and food by Sept. 1999, but also became more aware as 1999 went on that an economic impact and shortages by themselves were more likely than losing electricity combined with lingering shortages and an economic impact. I did make preparations for shortages, and much more than just an extra week's worth of what I would have had otherwise.

Because of my concerns about a recession or worse, I am now working a job that's mostly recession proof. There's a working bicycle in the house. Some Y2K preparation can't be measured in terms of lasting x number of days. Those kinds of preparations were prudent, even in late 1999. It's why I never became complacent about Y2K before the rollover.

-- (Preparation@was.prudent), June 15, 2000.

GOOD MORNING Y2KER'S!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Capnfun Cafe and Island Resort Welcomes You!!!

This mornings special is Godiva Capoccino and coffee,free to whomever crawls to the bar and says "Mumbo face to the bannana patch".

SUN ALERT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Beta Ray Police will be out today monitoring non-professional sun worshippers,have your gold card and Hawian Tropic ready,this is a 4 alarm nipple alert!!!

I'm too damn drunk right now to plan todays activites so I'll have to let ya know when I sober up,sometime today/tomorrow???

Let me see what Andy thinks : )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 15, 2000.

Appropriately ashamed doomer now posting as 'preparation',

There was never a reason to prepare. The Y2k hype was a lie. It was nothing more than an attempt by a few memetic doomers to incite civil unrest, and the doomers performed laughably.

And now you and your remaining contacts in life (all doomers themselves - who else will converse with you?) change your alias and attempt to hide - but you do not succeed in hiding the mindset that (mis-)led you down the path to wrongness in the first place. Pity.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 15, 2000.

There was never a reason to prepare. The Y2k hype was a lie. It was nothing more than an attempt by a few memetic doomers to incite civil unrest, and the doomers performed laughably.



While optimism pervades the domestic Y2K outlook, uncertainty with regard to Y2K's impact dictates that preparation is prudent. Individuals and companies must take charge of their own situation by examining the Y2K readiness of the utilities and services that they depend on, and by preparing accordingly.

-- (Preparation@was.prudent), June 15, 2000.

Never. History. Truth.

Please provide a link to definitions of these, coward.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 15, 2000.

Who I am...

-- (Preparation@was.prudent), June 15, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ