Some interesting info off the NERC ftp site, mentioned in csy2k. Is this old news?

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/contingency.pdf (Big chart showing estimated probability of various types of failures.)

ftp://www.nerc.com/pub/sys/all_updl/docs/y2k/y2k-reporting-changes-1-12-99.pdf which contains the following quote:

Discussions with Y2k Program Managers reporting completion dates after the target dates indicate that in almost every case it is a small number of facilities and a small number of items in those facilities that drive the projected dates. In many cases, accelerating the schedule is impractical because of planned maintenance outages or vendor limitations.

Recognizing this, the NERC monthly Y2k reporting status will be modified beginning with the January 1999 reports (due on or before January 29) to allow reporting of specific exceptions. Y2k Program Managers should report baseline completion dates for the overall program and note specific exceptions that fall beyond that baseline date. For example, a program expects all mission-critical facilities to complete remediation and testing by May 15, 1999 and to be Y2k Ready by June 15, 1999 with the following exceptions: A, B, and C.

A specific format for reporting the exceptions will be provided by a separate e-mail. We expected to continue using the existing report spreadsheet and that the amount of additional information required will be kept to a bare minimum.

All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public.

...

It is essential that the reports to NERC focus on those facilities and items that are mission critical to electric operations. Nonmission-critical items that may be completed after the industry target dates should not be the cause of reporting a late completion date.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Just amazing!

Michael.

-- Michael Goodfellow (mgoodfel@best.com), March 16, 1999

Answers

I put together the NERC filing for my company, what's the question? Everyone is yelling for truth and information and this change does that. I would complain if they didn't ask for items that weren't going to meet schedule because if you know anything about utility operations you know you can only test some components when you are in an outage (for some reason customers get upset if you turn their power off so you can do testing) and if you have been following Y2K issues you know that vendors are slowing down on their response rates for answering inquiries and generating fixes. Nobody is trying to hide anything or make themselves sound better than they are. What I find amazing are the large numbers of people who listen to so called experts that don't really have a clue as to what is really out there (North and Cowles come to mind)yet see fit to complain when they get real information with some real analysis.

-- Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E. (jennexme@sce.com), March 16, 1999.

Per the below Rick Cowles has asked me to retract my statements concerning him:

Since the beginning of this year, I've audited 1 nuclear facility and 4 fossil facilities for a client, and am currently engaged in performing program reviews of all jurisdictional utilities for a state public utility commission (no, not California).

This is the same type of work I've been doing for the past 2 years. Your characterization of me as an "expert that doesn't have a clue" borders on slanderous in a public forum, and may damage my professional ability to obtain future work. My client base is quite satisfied with the thoroughness of my work and approach to the Y2K issue.

Your placing me in the same league with Gary North is unfortunate. I respectfully request that you make an immediate retraction of your statement in the Time Bomb 2000 forum under a separate, new topic.

Regards,

Rick Cowles 129 West Main St. Penns Grove, NJ 08069

Not wanting to be associated with Gary North is commendable and I retract placing his name next to Gary's. As to not having a clue, that is my opinion. I have had many emails sent to me asking about Rick's commnets, specifically his assessment of the NERC report made without reading the NERC report first. I don't consider that a mark of expertise and since I have only seen his own and his net publisher proclaim him an expert, that to me qualifies as a so called expert. Please feel free to form your own opinions of Rick. My opinion of his expertise is not high, again based on reading many of his comments. To me, his comments speak of knowledge of utilities but not nuts and bolts knowledge of the equipment used in utilities, I may be wrong, but that is my opinion based on what I have read. Since I've seen many more idiotic opinions spread around on these forums I don't feel compelled to quell mine. If Rick is a true expert than my comments should not affect his work prospects, if not, oh well. I am tired of reading many expert opinions from those I don't consider expert. I have not claimed expertise but from the utility side but I could. So be it, choose your poison.

-- Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E. (jennexme@sce.com), March 16, 1999.

Mr. Jennex,

You have mischaracterized me as "evaluating the NERC report without reading it." I evaluated the NERC statistics from November, and postulated on the positioning of the report based on NERC Regional Coordinators Teleconference Minutes prior to the report being issued. My assessment and narrative was quite clear in this regard. If you have not read the actual document in question, I will be quite pleased to forward it to you on request.

-- Rick Cowles (rcowles@waterw.com), March 16, 1999.

I am confused. When I read Mr. Cowles's credentials on the euy2k site, its seems to me he is very qualified to analyze the data contained in the NERC report. I watched with great interest Rep. Horn's hearing yesterday on the progress of the DOT. Listening to the opening statement from Jane Garvey, one would conclude that the FAA is doing great and there is know reason to expect problems with the systems that control the skies. That is until I listened to Joel Willemsen from the GAO give the GAO's analysis of the same data. To say the least, it was substantially different. To date, the DOE has excepted without question, the conclusions expressed in the executive summary of the NERC report. Considering that fact, I am greatful for Mr. Cowles's input. Perhaps the DOE should inlist the GAO to evaluate the NERC report's data. As of right now, I am a little uncomfortable with the cozy relationship between NERC and the DOE.

-- codebuster (codebuster@large.com), March 16, 1999.

oops, "ACCEPTED without question...."

-- codebuster (codebuster@large.com), March 16, 1999.

Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., etc.,

Do your parents (Southern California Edison) know that you're playing on the internet?

Your defense of a policy that misrepresents, obfuscates and hides from the population information that may be vital to their well being is reprehensible.

Your claimed credentials have NO visible credibility or value when you claim that a policy which promises that, "All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public.", is even vaguely consistent with your statement that, "Everyone is yelling for truth and information and this change does that."

Will you next attempt to tell us that black is really white?

NERC says, "All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public.", and your reply is, "Nobody is trying to hide anything or make themselves sound better than they are."

That makes you either stupid or a liar in my book.

The NERC policy is to report that you will be done on schedule, unless you will not, in which case you are to report that you WILL be done on schedule EXCEPT (which clearly means that you will not) for the following items (which NERC promises to hold secret).

I HAVE NO CLUE whether or not you are who you say that you are, or whether or not your credentials are authentic or even if they are whether or not you know "what" from "watt", but it is abundantly clear that you have little interest in providing meaningful information here.

That Rick Cowles should be attacked by such as yourself is simply a reflection of the unwillingness you so openly and arrogantly display to reveal that "truth and information" that everyone so desperately wishes to hear and which your masters so obviously wish to conceal so much.

Your posting represents all that is dispicable in the American business community.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 16, 1999.

Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E., etc.,

Just for good measure, since it seems likely that such credentials as you may have would not be in jurisprudence, I take some small pleasure in informing you that you have given Mr. Cowles a legitimate cause of action for slander, libel or both (depending on how the court interprets the medium of an internet forum) against not only yourself, but against your employer, Southern California Edison (if you really do work there) since words and/or actions performed in the course and scope of your employment (you nailed yourself quite well in this regard) make your employer equally liable.

Congratulations! You may have initiated a new class of Y2K litigation! Personally, I hope Rick sues you and Southern California Edison and that the courts see fit to award punitive damages in direct proportion to the fact that your ill considered attack on Mr. Cowles has been published to the entire planet.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 16, 1999.

Hardliner:

Just for fun, lets engage in some ignorant and unwarrented speculation:

(1) Assume that some utilities have known items or issues which cannot be resolved by the due date. Some possible categories are:

a) Facilities items. These might be items for which no compliant replacement exists, items on order but the vendors are backlogged up the wazoo and can't give a delivery date, items unknown (the damn thing shuts down under test and nobody can figure out why), or items they just won't have time to get to because they're understaffed (and regulations prohibit the rate increases necessary to hire adequate staff).

b) Business items. The billing software is hosed, the vendor is belly up, the source is lost, customizations were major at installation time, and nobody knows what to do.

c) Peripheral concerns. Confidential communications with the coal train operators revealed that the train operator has no prayer of finding or switching the trains, and there won't be any coal.

2) Assume that the utility feels the need to keep these problems under their hat. What if people learn that the utility cannot track the kilowatt hours? Will they still pay their bills? How will it help the utility to reveal real problems they can't solve, and be swamped under by calls from the concerned public? What use are lawsuits from 3rd parties who won't be ready and are keeping their own secrets?

3) Assume that none of these problems will see the light of day if secrecy is not promised. If everything they reveal becomes public knowledge, all anyone will ever see is cheerful assurances that schedules will be met.

4) Assume that NERC has some ability to address common problems if only they can collate them. Perhaps someone else has a replacement part in stock. Perhaps someone at another utility figured out why it shuts down like that. Perhaps business software can be piggybacked onto someone with spare capacity. Perhaps a little backdoor political arm-twisting can relax some regulations. Perhaps another utility has finished and can spare some bodies.

If we follow this chain of assumptions, we reach the point where we can make the case that a policy of secrecy can break loose this information logjam. NERC can become a clearing house for problems and a steering body for solutions.

Much as I hate to be kept in the dark informationwise, it's still better than being kept in the dark juicewise.

Then again, maybe they're just covering their butts while they plan their escapes.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 1999.

Flint,

That whole chain of speculation pivots on the integrity of NERC and the capitalistic enterprises that voluntarily report to it. If you also assume that all of these entities are trustworthy and will unquestionably act in the interest of their customers as opposed to their stockholders then it makes some sense. Every corporation however, has as its FIRST priority, the production of a dividend for the stockholders. If the choice is one of producing that dividend for a few more months for sure, or maybe "going to the cleaners" financially right now, which will they choose? Further, if management does not choose the stockholders' benefit, they are criminally liable to the State as well as civilly liable to the stockholders for that failure.

The larger issue, in my view, is that NERC and the power utilities have arbitrarily and unilaterally taken the decision on themselves with full knowledge that if they are right, they will be given a "pass" for doing so and if they are wrong, there is little chance that they will be held to account for their high handed actions. The only representation in capitalism is the owning of stock.

For many years, the public utilities were given a State sanctioned monopoly (and many still are) with the other side of the coin being that they were held to a higher standard of accountability for the public welfare than a common commercial corporation. That value is one that is fading, at best, and gone, at worst, in our system of jurisprudence. Personally, I mourn its passing and view such as evidence of the "ownership" of the consumers by the stockholders (so to speak).

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 16, 1999.

What about the magical free market economy? How can it save us all if consumers have no way to know who's compliant? (a little sarcasm)

This secrecy policy is terrible. If people were made aware of the risks, however great or small, to their power company, we could plan accordingly. If things are as rosy as we are being told, I'd like some conformation. I'd sure sleep better at night. If the opposite is true, then the population might actually prepare. If any of your friends or family become ice cubes next winter Flint, your opinion of this policy may change.

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 16, 1999.

d, I was speculating about why the policy might have been promulgated. I wasn't expressing approval of it.

Nonetheless, I agree with Hardliner that the far future is end-of- quarter for the corporate types. I do believe that utilities see a clear interest in keeping their problems secret. Without the NERC policy, they'd be secret from NERC and from us as well. With this policy, perhaps NERC can learn of problems and deal with them. In *either* case, these are secrets from us.

And then again, perhaps someone at NERC will leak a little.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 1999.

Accept my credentials if you wish, don't if wish, I don't care. I can prove them to whomever wants but I won't do it over the Internet nor in this forum, because it won't matter. Those of you who wish to belive one side will, those of you who wish to believe the other side will do that. With that in mind, let me offer some legitimate information about the role of NERC. NERC has no power to enforce anything. They have been tasked by the President to assess the electric utility industry. Reporting to NERC is voluntary although NERC has, to their credit, made it look bad for those that don't by publishing who isn't reporting. The data collected by NERC is on our Y2K programs and if we will be ready when we say we will. They collect status on the Y2K ready status of a variety of systems and ask for specific problems. What is reported is what they have to evaluate. They have reported accurately and in my opinion, analyzed the data accurately. One thing I learned in earning my Ph.D. was that you can prove anything with statistics and data. If you are looking for bad news you will find it in the NERC report, if you are looking for good news you will find lots of that. I know the people at NERC and they are not trying to make us look better than we or worse, they are attempting to make an honest assessment. Keeping exceptions confidential was done to get people to report them. The problem is that many of you'all, through threats of lawsuits etc. have made utilities shy to report anything. Therefore, to get an overall status of the industry NERC had no choice but to keep this data confidential. However, most of you'all have again missed the boat. The California PUC requires all California IOUs to submit to them any report we submit to someone else. Most of these reports are made public. I would imagine other states are doing the same. So, if you really are curious what California utilities are saying, as the California PUC. My utility has nothing to hide. We have a plan and are doing it. As to NERC being a clearing house for information, that is the job of EPRI. EPRI is also a confidential effort due to liability concerns. However, I can tell you that we (various utility engineers doing Y2K)have asked each other and none of us has found a PLC that would fail to function in Y2K (in an electric utility application only, I don't know about the rest). This should be good news but I know most of you will just claim coverup. The point I'm making is that those of us who are doing the job know the extent of problems. As a clue, I'm not buying a generator, but I am preparing just like I would for any natural disaster. This is prudent for all of us. Again, I am more than willing to discuss legitimate questions and I will keep my opinions of your heros to myself, after all, less than 10 months till I'm proven right.

-- Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E. (jennexme@sce.com), March 16, 1999.

Murray E. Jennex, Ph.D., P.E,

"However, I can tell you that we (various utility engineers doing Y2K) have asked each other and none of us has found a PLC that would fail to function in Y2K (in an electric utility application only, I don't know about the rest)."

If that's true, wonderful. However, I don't see any documentation. I'd love to be positive about Y2K. The facts that are availible don't support anything but real preparation. If you have anything to show me that will change my mind, please post the facts, with references.

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 16, 1999.

Hardliner, you wrote:

" If you also assume that all of these entities are trustworthy and will unquestionably act in the interest of their customers as opposed to their stockholders then it makes some sense. Every corporation however, has as its FIRST priority, the production of a dividend for the stockholders. If the choice is one of producing that dividend for a few more months for sure, or maybe "going to the cleaners" financially right now, which will they choose? Further, if management does not choose the stockholders' benefit, they are criminally liable to the State as well as civilly liable to the stockholders for that failure."

I disagree with your assumption that the interests of the stockholders and the interest of the utilities customers are opposed. If the utilities can't generate electricity, they won't get paid and the stockholder won't get his dividend. Furthermore, the stockholder has the same interest in knowing whether the utility will be able to generate electricity come 1/3/2000 that the customer does. If the utility executives intentionally mislead the stockholder in this matter they can be sued by the stockholders for fraud. More importantly, if the customers suffer damages due to blackouts that could have been avoided had they received prior notification that blackouts were likely, and if the executives intentionally withheld such notification from their customers, then the executives and the utilities could be sued for negligence. The last thing that I would want, as a stockholder in a utility, would be a class action suit for negligence against my company by its customers. If I were a stockholder in a utility, I would prefer the company to get the bad news out now rather than risk losing even more in a negligence suit. Though many executives have a reputation for being short-sighted, I would expect them to anticipate and try to avoid negligence suits that would arise only one year in the future.

Robin Messing

-- Robin Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 16, 1999.

d:

What sort of documentation are you asking for here? A list of every one of the zero noncompliant PLCs? Or a list of all tested hardware, with test results included? Would such a list really make sense to you? (It wouldn't make much sense to me). And how could such a list be proved complete and accurate to your satisfaction?

This sounds like the tester's dilemma. If I claim a program or device has NO bugs, a single bug will prove me wrong. But I can never be proved right. I don't understand how the inability to find problems can be construed as evidence that we're in trouble.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 1999.

I wonder whether Mr. Jennex's name is pronounced JINX. Also, can anyone take seriously a person whose first name is MURRAY?

-- Bruce Gibson (BZGibson@aol.com), March 16, 1999.

Or 'Bruce' or 'Flint' for that matter.

When Joe Montana played for SF, there was a local contest to give him a nickname. Someone wrote back saying that Joe Montana already sounded like a nickname, and what he needed was a real name. The writer suggested David W. Gibson.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 16, 1999.

Robin,

I didn't say (or assume) that the two interests were opposed in all cases. I said that if, in the instant case that they were, that management would have no choice but to act in favor of the stockholders.

I also said that the only representation in capitalism is the owning of stock. The stockholders (if they own enough stock) will have no trouble whatsoever in obtaining any information that the corporation posesses. Customers have no such leverage.

As for lawsuits, you are correct in that stockholders may and have brought suit against management and have prevailed, however my understanding is that customers suing power companies have historically been almost non-existent. Can you provide a citation where a consumer of power prevailed against the provider of such who failed to deliver?

In any event, if the situation arises where the consumers have a cause of action for failure to provide power, it seems unlikely that there will be courts or lawsuits of any kind for some indeterminate period of time. Through into the mix the trend in legislation toward Y2K immunity for corporate entities and it seems even more unlikely that power companies will end up in court.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 16, 1999.

All identified exceptions will be held in strict confidence and will not be reported to DOE or the public.

This sounds like the truth in pain.

"Nobody is trying to hide anything or make themselves sound better than they are."

This sounds like one of those so called experts that really doesn't have a clue.

-- Mike Lang (webflier@erols.com), March 16, 1999.

Hardliner, you state that Murray Jennex has given Cowles grounds for a libel suit and you have urged Cowles to sue Jennex. I am not a lawyer, but I was once threatened with a libel suit as a result of posting information on the internet. I owned a lot of stock in a company and I learned, from two different sources, that the CEO was acting corruptly. I published a great deal of critical information about the CEO and the company got their lawyer to threaten me with libel. There is not a doubt in my mind that I would have won in court, but the company would have used stockholders' money to pay their lawyer and I didn't have $100+ /hour to pay a lawyer to defend myself. So I shut up and didn't discuss the company any more. That's the problem with libel law. It can shut people up if they don't have $100,000 lying around to defend themselves. Libel law has turned into a great suppresser of information.

As I said, I am not a lawyer, but because I was threatened with a law suit I did a great deal of reading about libel law. Rick Cowles COULD sue Jennex, but he would probably lose in court. Rick Cowles is undoubtedly a public figure when it comes to electric utilities and y2k. He proclaims himself to be an expert in this matter. He has one of the most widely read web sites discussing this issue (if not the ONLY site totally dedicated to this issue.) He makes money off his book and speaking tours. He proclaims himself one of the leading experts in this field and he does not hesitate to shape the public's perception of the y2k readiness of the electric utility industry. If he holds his expertise out to the public, then questioning his expertise in public forums is fair game. By taking such a prominent position in the y2k debates, Rick has become one of the big boys and he should be able to take the criticism of a big league player.

It is very difficult to win a libel suit if you are a public figure. In this case, Cowles would have to prove:

1) That Jennex's statement was slanderous, i.e. that it discredited him.

2) That Jennex's statement was a statement of fact and not one of opinion. You can not lose a libel suit for stating a general opinion. Your statement must be a statement of verifiable fact.

3) Jennex's statement would have to be factually wrong.

AND

4) Jennex knew that he was telling a lie or that he was making a statement in reckless disregard of the truth. This is what is referred to as "actual malice" in libel law.

Cowles would have to prove all four elements. He would easily be able to prove the first part. The court could rule either way on the second part. Is Jennex's claim that Cowle's is not a real expert a statement of fact or one of opinion? I don't know how the court would rule on this one, but for argument's sake, let's assume the court decides against Jennex and rules this a statement of fact. The court would then have to decide whether Cowles really was an expert or whether he was only a "self-proclaimed" expert. I don't know how a court would decide, but again, let's assume it decided that Cowles really knew what he was talking about.

The fourth requirement would be the most difficult for Cowles to prove. He would have to show that Jennex had no reason to question his expertise, and that Jennex knew that he had no reasonable basis to question Cowles expertise. Cowles would bear the burden of proving with convincing clarity that Jennex knew or should have known that Cowles knew what he was talking about. This is a difficult task indeed, and well it should be.

If it weren't for this last requirement it would be much more difficult to question public figures and officials. You would not have been able to question Clinton's morality before having hard evidence that he had committed adultery, perjury and other immoral and/or criminal acts. And how would anyone ever get the evidence if we couldn't question his morality?

We also need to be able to question those who hold themselves out to be experts, whether it be Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Rick Cowles, or Charles Reuben (CPR) on the "Gary North is An Idiot" board. Unless we can question their expertise without fear of a libel suit, how will we find out who is an expert and who is an emperor without any clothes.

Anyone who climbs into the public arena must expect criticism. That is the price you pay when you proclaim yourself to be an expert. The best way to defend yourself is to engage in a vigorous battle in the free market of ideas. If you really know what you are talking about--if you really are an expert-- then your knowledge and logic will shine through. You will convince your audience that you know what you are talking about, despite what any detractor might say.

A libel suit is anathema to the free market of ideas. A libel suit squelches the free flow of information. A libel suit is a tool of a coward who knows he can't win a debate or defend his honor through logic, evidence and persuasion. A libel suit, or even the threat of a libel suit, is the intellectual equivalent of a mugger who drags his victim into a dark alley and knocks him out to silence him.

Hardliner, I am surprised that you, of all people would want to see libel suits flourish. You seem to put a high value on the free flow of information and abhor NERC's policy of secrecy. Don't you realize that encouraging a culture of litigation will not encourage the free flow of information--it can only hinder it.

I end on a note of irony. Let's suppose Cowles sued Jennex for putting him in the same category as Gary North. Gary North could then sue Cowles because his libel suit against Jennex would imply that he (Cowles) thought North was a clown who didn't know what he was talking about. The very act of Cowles suing Jennex could be construed by North as slanderous and worthy of a libel suit.

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 16, 1999.

Leaving the lawyers to let lawyers law at each other for a moment:

You brought up the loyalty of a utility to stockbrokers or to their customers. Good point - but there are dimetrically opposing interests here, and the consumer is ill-equipped and unarmed in this battle.

The cusumer is threatened with extreme discomfortfort and possibly injurgy if the power goes out. The stock owner will not get cold if the power goes out (he or she only looses money), nor will the utility (based on the government's track record to date) be held accountable if the power goes out. The government (now) is desperately seeking redeeming news to keep people from pulling money from their banks - and has enlisted/coerced NERC into providing that "good news" security blanket.

Thus, since NERC must keep the governemnt happy, and keep the stockholders (insert boards) of the utilities happy by keeping stock prices high through the end of 1999, why should they upset the tipsy apple-cart by publicizing real information. If power fails, locally, regionally or nationally (via the combined effect of several "local" brownouts and blackouts, the focus will be on recovering power - and NERC escapes blame then.

There are no real penalties for providing misleading or false information, and many reasons to do so through the end of this year. Only the consumer is penalized with secret reporting. All of the others involved, especially the federal government, have political and financial reasons to want to hide their real status. Especially those who gain by being able to hide their failure.

Those who perform well, like Ontario Hydro apparently are, stand out, in my opinion, because they are far enough ahead to be able to admit the truth. If there were multi-million penalties for submitting false reports, if the utility boards would go to jail for submitting lies or hiding data, then I would trust the hidden reports.

But, there are no penalties for lies. Only rewards.

I would believe simple numeric "status lists" of what's left to do, when it is scheduled, and what is already done. If the utilities cannot provide that information, then they need to fix their methods so they know what is going on. If they post such information, then people will begin to believe their predictions, and will know where and when to panic. Without such public information, the public will not believe.

Because the government has proved itself completely untrustworthy. And becuase we, collectively, have been lied to so often by the media and the press, that we will not believe official statements that cannot be seen to based on facts. And hidden records, like the April 9 "NERC phone call drill" that will be loudly used by the governemnt to PROVE that power will be available next year, just drives another nail in NERC's twin-bed coffin with the administration. We hope it is not another nail in the consumers' coffins.

And, because next January - February, the utilities and government may or may not have the media skirts to hide behind.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 16, 1999.

"d: What sort of documentation are you asking for here? A list of every one of the zero noncompliant PLCs? Or a list of all tested hardware, with test results included? Would such a list really make sense to you? (It wouldn't make much sense to me)."

Sorry, I've been offline for a bit. To answer your question, I guess a simple no would be in order. I don't require pages of results, all I require is some back up to your statements. I'm not a programmer, I'm a graphic artist. To be fair though, I've waded through reports of all kinds from various sources, and it wasn't easy, but my head hasn't exploded yet. I'm just asking for some sources.

You haven't offered any sources yet, to my knowledge... I keep track of the threads, but I miss a few (hundred) so I'm not saying that you haven't provided them before. If you have, I'm sorry. If not, then you have no more credibility than Dieter or any other person who posts here (incedently, I'd back Dieter over many I know in "real" life).

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 17, 1999.

d

What a complete hypocrite you are! You call it bitching when I am trying to get GI's to back up their assertions. But I guess it's different when you're asking for documentation from a DGI and try to get him to support his information.

Thank you for proving my point.

-- john (i'm@mywitsend.com), March 17, 1999.

"What a complete hypocrite you are! You call it bitching when I am trying to get GI's to back up their assertions. But I guess it's different when you're asking for documentation from a DGI and try to get him to support his information.

Thank you for proving my point."

All right, you want to play the name calling game. I'm not averse to such things. ASSHEAD, how was I a hypocrite? YOU HAVE YET TO PROVIDE AN OUNCE OF SUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION. If you want documentation, I can give you 100's of pages to back up my fucking opinion. What do you have?

You have given us nothing to prove or disprove. All you have done is complain about other people's work. DO SOMETHING ASSHEAD! I make no claim against this forum.

My main point is, if you have a big problem with the way this forum is run, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! If all you have to offer is complaints then fuck off. If all you want is for others to research your points for you, then pay them for it. Prove your own damn points.

I'm just a young artist hoping that I have a job a year from now. I, quite frankly, don't give a rat's ass what you think until you provide me with a reason to care. If you're depending on me to prove your point, you haven't proven much. I'm just one of many and I'm not nearly as informed as most people here.

P.S.

ASSHEAD,

We do ask for documentation on every claim that seems to be a little odd... Check out the posts dealing with the worldnetdaily articles.

-- d (d@usedtobedgi.old), March 17, 1999.

Robert Cook and Hardliner,

You raise some interesting points which I will answer later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, check out these posts:

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/959.html

http://www.smu.edu/cgi-bin/Nova/get/gn/959/5.html

Robin Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 17, 1999.

Ah, so now the agenda becomes clearer, Robin - the two "links" you provide go directly to the "Gary North is a Big Fat Idiot" forum.

In the interest of disclosure, you should at least identify your links as such.

-- Night (y2k_nightmare@my-dejanews.com), March 17, 1999.

Robin,

Although you have obviously done some reading about libel law, you are missing a few basic concepts here.

To begin with, I did not say that Jennex had given Cowles "grounds" for a lawsuit, I said he had given him a "cause of action". There is a difference, but I'm afraid that you'll have to do your own learning here. Furthermore, I said that I hoped that Cowles sued; that is to say that I hoped that he caused the question to be submitted to a court of law. For one who is not a lawyer, to say that such constitutes an "urging" on my part seems to be quite a twist of meaning.

Your own experience with libel law has understandably left you with a sour taste in your mouth. I suspect that anyone would feel the way that you do, given the experience that you relate. Libel law, however is our society's attempt to provide a remedy for those who have been wronged by another in a public forum. The most relevant fact about either libel or slander is that truth is a complete defense.

In your case, or in any hypothetical case involving Cowles, Southern California Edison and Jennex, a simple demonstration of the truth (read here as "accuracy") of Jennex's words, or yours,would settle the matter.

I find it curious that you view the libel laws as suppressing information. Your complaints of legal fees notwithstanding, expensive counsel is simply not needed if you have told the truth. All that is suppressed is inaccurate information. If you have told the simple truth, your defense is absolute and in the event that you have retained counsel, you will find the court ordering the plaintiff to pay your counsel's fees when all is said and done.

Your belief that being a public figure requires you to endure libel and slander is inaccurate. I would refer you to the case in which Ms. Carol Burnett sued the National Enquirer and won a multi-million dollar judgement for inaccurate and libelous information that the Enquirer had published about herself and Mr. Henry Kissinger.

It appears to me that your denigration of those who might pursue such remedies as the law allows ("A libel suit is a tool of a coward who knows he can't win a debate or defend his honor through logic, evidence and persuasion. A libel suit, or even the threat of a libel suit, is the intellectual equivalent of a mugger who drags his victim into a dark alley and knocks him out to silence him.") may well be a rationalization of your own actions in the situation that you have described. Please don't take that as a "flame". It is not meant as such, but as an attempt to understand why you might have such negative, image-filled thoughts about a legal concept that is clearly designed to remedy one who has been wronged. A libel suit is a debate to, "defend honor through logic, evidence and persuasion". Furthermore, it is a debate that is carried on in front of witnesses and judges of fact and circumstance and one that ensures a "winner" and a "loser". To further ensure equity, it is a debate that can be appealed if either side is unsatisfied with the results.

Not to neglect your concerns about money, let me state my values this way: If you are the defendant and you have truly slandered someone, I have no sympathy for your financial plight. We're talking about a civil matter here, and if your mouth was good enough to get you into this situation, you will have to depend on it to get you out of it. If you are NOT guilty, then the truth should prevail and I find it hard to believe that such a situation would ever make it into court to begin with. If you are the plaintiff, you will either be facing a defendant who has money enough for professional counsel or not. If your opponent has such resources, it is likely that he has enough assets that you will have no trouble finding counsel of your own that will take the case on a contingency basis, providing that the facts are on your side. Such is the way that we do business in America. If your opponent has no counsel, but represents himself, you are simply on an even footing.

You make an unwarranted and inaccurate assumption when you believe that I wish to, ". . .see libel suits flourish." What I wish is that people would treat each other with dignity and respect and equity and that when they don't that they suffer the consequences of such lack. FWIW, I saw the Cowles situation as follows: A previously unknown cyber-entity showed up on this forum and arrogantly shot off his mouth, beginning with, "I put together the NERC filing for my company, what's the question?", as if to say, "I'm here now! I'll settle this! Ask away!" That entity then "signed off" with a prominent display of credentials which, whether real or not, had no relevance to the defense which he put forth of a policy. He characterized both Gary North and Rick Cowles in a derogatory manner and in general "spoke down" to everyone here. I think that he should be allowed to do the same thing in a courtroom and either prove his allegations or suffer the consequences.

Now ordinarily I would consider this no big deal, but we are discussing matters which could conceivably be life or death matters to many who might be reading this forum. Listening to the advice of one or the other of these two could well mean anything from nothing at all to fatal consequences. I simply don't see it as being in anyone's interest to discredit the other viewpoint. It's really the same issue as the NERC secrecy policy; let the one who will ultimately be affected by the information decide for himself. He is the one who will pay the consequences or reap the rewards, so he should be allowed to evaluate all the information for himself.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 17, 1999.

Robin,

Your agenda is indeed becoming clearer.

I would refer you (and all other interested parties) to Dr. Eric Berne and his Transactional Analysis work, Games People Play.

You will find an astonishingly accurate description of your, "Gentlemen, come out fighting" post, as well as an exposition of your motives in the game titled, "Let's You and Him Fight!"

Tripp, trappp, tripp trapp, "Please, Robin, don't eat me! I have a big brother who is far tastier and much larger! He will be along soon and you can eat him. . ."

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 17, 1999.

Two points:

d:

If I understand you correctly, you ask for backup to the statement about embedded systems in Electric Generation/Distribution.

From Avista:

Link

"We have yet to find a single embedded controller or subsystem anywhere within our generation or transmission infrastructure that would have hampered our ability to generate or deliver energy to our customers," said Jeff Brune, Y2K project manager for Avista Corp.

From Texas Utilities:

Link

Q. How much of the embedded system testing work is complete in your fossil-fueled steam generating plants?

Thirty-one (31) of Texas Utilities' fossil-fueled steam generating plants have been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. Testing on the remaining twenty-one (21)units is planned for the spring overhaul season of 1999 with anticipated completion by June 1999.

Eleven (11) fossil-fueled steam generating units have been tested for critical dates "on-line" while generating electricity. No significant problems have been identified during either "on-line" or "off-line" testing.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of assessment and testing of equipment in the Transmission Business Unit?

The current transmission system control and data acquisition software and hardware (SCADA) has been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. However, a new system is scheduled to be fully operational by the Fall of 1999. This new system is currently undergoing Y2K testing.

No remediation of transmission relay systems has been necessary. Testing has shown all protective relay systems to be Y2K Ready. Some upgrades to Digital Fault Recording (DFR) equipment have been performed to improve data flow and to increase TU's ability to analyze transmission faults. These systems were Y2K Ready prior to the upgrade and remain Y2K Ready.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of assessment and testing of equipment in the Lone Star Gas distribution system?

The gas system control and data acquisition software (SCADA) has been tested and determined to be Y2K compliant. There are a small number of Remote Terminal Units (RTU's) that interface with SCADA that will be upgraded. This work is scheduled for completion by June 1999.

Q. What remediation work has been identified as a result of the assessment and testing of equipment in the TU Electric distribution system?

The TU Electric system control and date acquisition software and hardware has been tested and determined to be Y2K Ready. There are no mission critical field devices scheduled for replacement. Software upgrades are planned for various diagnostic systems. Some meters are also being upgraded. All work is scheduled for completion by June 1999.

And from TVA:

Link

Our generation group has successfully converted 16 units at four fossil plants and 69 units at eleven hydro plants to Year 2000. All systems at those plants were set forward to test the transition to January 1, 2000. The hydro plants are still operating in Year 2000 mode. Twelve of the 16 fossil units are generating power in Year 2000 mode. Four fossil units ran in Year 2000 mode for 90 days before being reset to the current date.

We are encouraged to find that a high percentage of the total transmission system components tested thus far are Year 2000 compliant. Our transmission organization has converted a 500 kV substation, one of our largest, and a 161 kV substation to use Year 2000 dates and they are transmitting power in that mode today.

Point Two:

As to the subject of this thread. It is my understanding NERC has always guaranteed anonymity to the respondents of its survey. The reiteration of this policy does not seem to justify the outrage displayed here.

My reading of the NERC documents is that the change merely affects the completion date being reported. Non-conforming systems are still included in the overall percentages reported.

My take is this change is to address situations such as at my Power company, Virginia Power. From its current status:

Link

It is currently 93% complete with remediation/testing, and expects to be 99% complete by July. It has scheduled the completion of remediation of the final 1% in October, during a scheduled plant maintenance outage. Reporting the completion date as 10/1999 will in essence abnormally skew the average date of completion used by NERC.

The fact that NERC is identifying and monitoring individual systems that may pose a risk is to be commended.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-dejanews.com), March 17, 1999.

Good info, good analysis Hoffmeister - clear, unambiguous data reduces confusion and eliminates doubt. Thank you.

Patting myself on the back...The specific points they found that had to be fixed at TU (and the gas lines and TVA) were the controllers and programs in the plants, and the parts of SCADA that I expected to fail - no mention though of data transmission from the remote terminals to the central units! Also: telephone, remote power at each relay, sensing and control point, microwave relay tower status, and microwave relay power, and satellite/celluar interconnections are apparently "assumed" to be continuously reliable (most likely), or just not tested yet by each utility.

Mere claims of "We'll be ready" - particularly from an administrator - inflame doubt and increase confusion. particularly, if his claims are not supported by backup numbers, and to date of this posting, none have been except for Ontario Hydro. For example: "There is no doubt in my mind, (that) we will be ready for Year 2000..." translates as nothing but press-placebo's. There is no doubt in my mind either that Year 2000 will come. What can the administrator do? Stop it?

Now, if the good representative from the utilities out west would do the same for PG&E ....

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 17, 1999.

FYI, got this info from PG&E site: Link (Apologies in advance if HTML screws up)

Year 2000 Readiness of Mission-Critical Items
- as of March 8, 1999 -

Systems	Remediation Complete	Testing Complete	Certification Complete
In-house software	100%	94%	13%
Vendor Software	88%	74%	2%
Embedded Systems	96%	94%	83%
Computer Hardware	90%	57%	10%

-- Hoffmeister (hoffmeister@my-dejanews.com), March 17, 1999.

Thank you - though final percentages can be misused, abused, mistated, misleading and dead wrong - these for PG&E at least indicate a reasonable state of progress, if true.

If true, they (PG&E) can most likely complete at this rate.

Why the delay in "certified" systems, if testing is so far along? Do you know what their definition of "certified" is, and who is responsible for the certification?

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 17, 1999.

Of course, I am in Murry Jenex corner on this one. A careful reading of Rick Cowles posted bio raises some interesting questions. These are as follows:

1. Just what position did Mr. Cowles fill in the Navy, ie. what was his rank? His bio does not say, at least not as of 6 weeks or so ago.

2. Exactly what did he do for the power industry? Was he a programmer on the billing systems? A high level systems analyst? Did he ever program any PLC's or do embedded work? Has he ever been on the plant floor? If he is familiar with the equipment, is his focus on hydro, steam, nuclear, geothermal - - - what?

Some answers to these questions would give a basis for whether or not to buy into his theories about blackouts and so forth.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 18, 1999.

His rank is immaterial - which platforms, what years, what activities where done on the platforms while he was aboard/onshore are what counts.

A 2 year training tour, for example, as a chief teaching diesel mechanics in LST-size diesels may be more important towrds understand the interconnectivity and difficulties involved in "keeping things running" than five year programming financial software on a mainframe.

10 years as an officer in a gas turbine destroyer (where the turbine is simple and highly automated) might teach you almost nothing, but 2 years on an nuclear aircraft carrier in a shipyard as a machinist mate would have exposed him to every test and system on board - and in how easy they are to break, and how hard they are to isolate and fix.

-- Robert A. Cook, P.E. (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), March 18, 1999.

From Mr. Cowles bio, at euy2k.com:

"Mr. Cowles began his career in the commercial electric utility industry with Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation in 1980, after serving six years on nuclear submarines in the U.S. Navy. In 1983, he joined the Operations Staff at Public Service Electric and Gas Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Over the next 15 years, he worked in the power generation, regulatory and business ends of the electric industry. Hes spent time on the shop floor, in the board room, and control room. His information systems and instrumentation / controls experience (ISA certifications, 1983) span that entire timeframe, from System 38 and Tandem NonStop II system operations to an SAP enterprise resource planning implementation."

Does this answer any questions?

-- Dan Webster (cantsp@m.me), March 18, 1999.

Paul,

If it is your desire to know Mr. Cowles military rank, there are databases you can search to find out. Do your own homework.

-- (cannot-say@this.time), March 18, 1999.

Robert Cook,

You wrote:

You brought up the loyalty of a utility to stockbrokers or to their customers. Good point - but there are dimetrically opposing interests here, and the consumer is ill-equipped and unarmed in this battle.

The cusumer is threatened with extreme discomfortfort and possibly injurgy if the power goes out. The stock owner will not get cold if the power goes out (he or she only looses money),

LOL! You mean to say if I purchase stock in my local utility then I will be protected from freezing? So I can just buy few shares of NYSEG stock and I can forget about buying a generator to keep myself warm? Well, I suppose I could always line my windows with my stock certificates and that will provide some insulation, but I think this will only be of marginal help.

nor will the utility (based on the government's track record to date) be held accountable if the power goes out. The government (now) is desperately seeking redeeming news to keep people from pulling money from their banks - and has enlisted/coerced NERC into providing that "good news" security blanket. . . .

There are no real penalties for providing misleading or false information, and many reasons to do so through the end of this year. Only the consumer is penalized with secret reporting.

But stockholders are consumers of electricity. I live in New York. Suppose I own stock in a New Jersey company that goes down due to y2k bugs. I could still freeze if this instability brings a widespread portion of the grid down. For that reason, a stockholder has a direct personal stake in getting as much information in advance about the probability that his company will be able to fulfill its mission, even if his company does not directly provide power to him.

But, there are no penalties for lies. Only rewards.

Oh really? Let me see if I got this straight. The government and NERC are in a conspiracy to hide the truth from the people and if the power goes down and lots of people die then it is tough luck. The people have no legal recourse?

Let's suppose the worst happens and that there are widespread blackouts that last say, a week, and thousands of people freeze to death. Do you really think there will be no penalties? What will government officials do? Pass laws exempting the utilities from penalties? How popular do you think such laws will be and how long do you think any official who votes for such a law will stay elected?

Even if utilities couldn't be held liable for failing to deliver electricity, they could be held negligent if their statements lulled people into a sense of complacency and misled them to think that they didn't have to prepare for a prolonged blackout. They could be sued for their misleading statements. It is for this very reason that utility executives would be reluctant to make their status seem better than it is. This is not just theoretical supposition on my part. This is indeed what is happening, according to Peter de Jager's "Doomsday Avoided" article.

http://www.year2000.com/archive/NFy2kdoomsday.html

Finally? The big bugaboo, the power industry. I wish I was as confident here as I am with the other two points of the triangle. The statements, reports and press releases from this industry are wishy washy, confusing and misleading.

On one hand, we have dozens of power stations already working in the Year 2000 by advancing their clocks. On the other hand, we have statements offering little assurance e.g. from the Canadian Electrical Association "Most entities report nothing which would have opened a circuit (cut off power)." Implying obliquely, I think, that "Some entities reported problems which did cut off power ?????"

Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"

If anything, De Jager says fear of lawsuits may be causing utilities to be overly pessimistic in their pronouncements, not overly optimistic.

* * *

Hardliner, you wrote:

As for lawsuits, you are correct in that stockholders may and have brought suit against management and have prevailed, however my understanding is that customers suing power companies have historically been almost non-existent. Can you provide a citation where a consumer of power prevailed against the provider of such who failed to deliver?

In any event, if the situation arises where the consumers have a cause of action for failure to provide power, it seems unlikely that there will be courts or lawsuits of any kind for some indeterminate period of time. Through into the mix the trend in legislation toward Y2K immunity for corporate entities and it seems even more unlikely that power companies will end up in court

I can not provide a citation where consumers prevailed against a provider who failed to deliver. You might be correct in assuming that a consumer could never win such a suit. But even if a consumer couldn't win on the grounds of failure to deliver electricity, he could sue the power company for negligence (or perhaps even fraud) if they make misleading statements that convince consumers that they have no need to make preparations for an extended power outage. Since reliable electricity is a matter of life and death in winter, the utilities have a duty to inform consumers if there is a significant probability that they will not be able to deliver electricity for a prolonged period of time. They will breach their duty if they fail to inform the consumer of their shortcomings. If people get hurt because the electric companies breached their duty to inform, the companies and their directors can be sued for negligence. The utility executives might be liable for neglecting to warn the population if they said absolutely nothing about their status while knowing there was a substantial chance that they wouldn't be able to generate electricity. If they actually made misleading and reassuring statements then the probability that they will be found guilty of negligence (and possibly fraud) substantially increases.

You raise a scenario where there would not be any courts or lawsuits for a significant period of time. Things would have to be *VERY* bad for this scenario to arise. I suspect power would have to be out for weeks and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people would die. Do you really think there won't be a high price to pay if this happens? If a government official tried to protect a utility executive from punishment, being voted out of office would be the least of his worries. If the people could get no justice through the legal system they might lynch a number of electric utility executives and the politicians/judges who tried to protect them. I am not advocating this behavior, but it if enough people die it is highly predictable. If hundreds of thousands people die someone will pay a price--either in the courts or on the streets.

I think both government officials and utility executives are smarter and more farsighted than a number of people here give them credit for. It is in the best interest of the executives and the stockholders to look beyond just the next quarter. Most people will be concerned about how their actions will affect their wallets one or two years down the line. Conducting a campaign of false assurances will only delay the pain the stockholders feel by a year or so. After that the stockholders will be worse off than they would have been had there been no campaign of deception.

Robin Messing

P.S. There are many other issues that I have to address, particularly about libel law. That may have to wait until this weekend.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 18, 1999.

again?

-- Mutha Nachu (---@igotdacure.com), March 19, 1999.

Robert Cook,

I decided to repost this because my original one is confusing with the messed up format. I apologize for the wasted bandwith. Thank you for your help, Mutha Nachu!

You wrote:

You brought up the loyalty of a utility to stockbrokers or to their customers. Good point - but there are dimetrically opposing interests here, and the consumer is ill-equipped and unarmed in this battle.

The cusumer is threatened with extreme discomfortfort and possibly injurgy if the power goes out. The stock owner will not get cold if the power goes out (he or she only looses money),

LOL! You mean to say if I purchase stock in my local utility then I will be protected from freezing? So I can just buy few shares of NYSEG stock and I can forget about buying a generator to keep myself warm? Well, I suppose I could always line my windows with my stock certificates and that will provide some insulation, but I think this will only be of marginal help.

nor will the utility (based on the government's track record to date) be held accountable if the power goes out. The government (now) is desperately seeking redeeming news to keep people from pulling money from their banks - and has enlisted/coerced NERC into providing that "good news" security blanket. . . .

There are no real penalties for providing misleading or false information, and many reasons to do so through the end of this year. Only the consumer is penalized with secret reporting.

But stockholders are consumers of electricity. I live in New York. Suppose I own stock in a New Jersey company that goes down due to y2k bugs. I could still freeze if this instability brings a widespread portion of the grid down. For that reason, a stockholder has a direct personal stake in getting as much information in advance about the probability that his company will be able to fulfill its mission, even if his company does not directly provide power to him.

But, there are no penalties for lies. Only rewards.

Oh really? Let me see if I got this straight. The government and NERC are in a conspiracy to hide the truth from the people and if the power goes down and lots of people die then it is tough luck. The people have no legal recourse?

Let's suppose the worst happens and that there are widespread blackouts that last say, a week, and thousands of people freeze to death. Do you really think there will be no penalties? What will government officials do? Pass laws exempting the utilities from penalties? How popular do you think such laws will be and how long do you think any official who votes for such a law will stay elected?

Even if utilities couldn't be held liable for failing to deliver electricity, they could be held negligent if their statements lulled people into a sense of complacency and misled them to think that they didn't have to prepare for a prolonged blackout. They could be sued for their misleading statements. It is for this very reason that utility executives would be reluctant to make their status seem better than it is. This is not just theoretical supposition on my part. This is indeed what is happening, according to Peter de Jager's "Doomsday Avoided" article.

http://www.year2000.com/archive/NFy2kdoomsday.html

Finally? The big bugaboo, the power industry. I wish I was as confident here as I am with the other two points of the triangle. The statements, reports and press releases from this industry are wishy washy, confusing and misleading.

On one hand, we have dozens of power stations already working in the Year 2000 by advancing their clocks. On the other hand, we have statements offering little assurance e.g. from the Canadian Electrical Association "Most entities report nothing which would have opened a circuit (cut off power)." Implying obliquely, I think, that "Some entities reported problems which did cut off power ?????"

Which is it? Are there problems or aren't there? The answer may be hidden in some of the off-the-record conversations which go something like this "Peter, we didn't find ANYTHING which would have cut off power but the lawyers won't let us say that since it comes across as a guarantee that we'll have power that day! So we have to suggest we did find problems!"

If anything, De Jager says fear of lawsuits may be causing utilities to be overly pessimistic in their pronouncements, not overly optimistic

* * *

Hardliner, you wrote:

As for lawsuits, you are correct in that stockholders may and have brought suit against management and have prevailed, however my understanding is that customers suing power companies have historically been almost non-existent. Can you provide a citation where a consumer of power prevailed against the provider of such who failed to deliver?

In any event, if the situation arises where the consumers have a cause of action for failure to provide power, it seems unlikely that there will be courts or lawsuits of any kind for some indeterminate period of time. Through into the mix the trend in legislation toward Y2K immunity for corporate entities and it seems even more unlikely that power companies will end up in court

I can not provide a citation where consumers prevailed against a provider who failed to deliver. You might be correct in assuming that a consumer could never win such a suit. But even if a consumer couldn't win on the grounds of failure to deliver electricity, he could sue the power company for negligence (or perhaps even fraud) if they make misleading statements that convince consumers that they have no need to make preparations for an extended power outage. Since reliable electricity is a matter of life and death in winter, the utilities have a duty to inform consumers if there is a significant probability that they will not be able to deliver electricity for a prolonged period of time. They will breach their duty if they fail to inform the consumer of their shortcomings. If people get hurt because the electric companies breached their duty to inform, the companies and their directors can be sued for negligence. The utility executives might be liable for neglecting to warn the population if they said absolutely nothing about their status while knowing there was a substantial chance that they wouldn't be able to generate electricity. If they actually made misleading and reassuring statements then the probability that they will be found guilty of negligence (and possibly fraud) substantially increases.

You raise a scenario where there would not be any courts or lawsuits for a significant period of time. Things would have to be *VERY* bad for this scenario to arise. I suspect power would have to be out for weeks and hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people would die. Do you really think there won't be a high price to pay if this happens? If a government official tried to protect a utility executive from punishment, being voted out of office would be the least of his worries. If the people could get no justice through the legal system they might lynch a number of electric utility executives and the politicians/judges who tried to protect them. I am not advocating this behavior, but it if enough people die it is highly predictable. If hundreds of thousands people die someone will pay a price--either in the courts or on the streets.

I think both government officials and utility executives are smarter and more farsighted than a number of people here give them credit for. It is in the best interest of the executives and the stockholders to look beyond just the next quarter. Most people will be concerned about how their actions will affect their wallets one or two years down the line. Conducting a campaign of false assurances will only delay the pain the stockholders feel by a year or so. After that the stockholders will be worse off than they would have been had their been no campaign of deception.

Robin Messing

P.S. There are many other issues that I have to address, particularly about libel law. That may have to wait until this weekend.

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 19, 1999.

Well, I see that Mutt 'n Jeff here (Messing 'n "Mutha") seem to view themselves as a tag team of professional legal experts, historians and sociologists!

You have no idea of what the state of the law is in this country! Your arguments are pure wishful thinking.

You were right to inform everyone that you are not a lawyer. You couldn't even play one on a soap opera!

Go back to your Gary North bashing. That's an appropriate forum for psuedo intellects such as yourselves.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 19, 1999.

My point was, and still is, that Cowles bio tells you absolutely nothing about what he has actually done. I was there for 14 years does not mean he ever left the corporate office. Served in the Nuclear Navy means he was in the Navy. Does not mean he was any rank above ABS. Learn to read this stuff for Pete's sake.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), March 20, 1999.

THanKS To aLL FoR SHoWINg dieTEr ThE FOolISHneSS OF allOWINg a SOciETY TO be rUn aND GOVerNED By lawYeRS!!!!! DOes It nOt maKE thE FrEE EXchANgE OF reLIabLe y2K InfoRMAtiON DIffICULt????? yEs????? HYeNAs IS moST descRIpTiVE, Is tHat nOt sO????? vuLtUrES tOo!!!!! LeEcHES?????

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 20, 1999.

Hardliner, first of all, let me thank you for recommending the book "Games People Play". I just borrowed it from the library and it looks like it might be interesting. I'll let you know what I think of it after I've had some time to read it.

Second, you said that you were merely stating a desire to see the matter between Jennex and Cowles settled in court. You were not, in fact, urging Cowles to take Jennex to court. This is a very subtle distinction, but it is obviously important to you. It sure looked to me like you were urging Cowles to sue Jennex but I accept your clarification of this matter. I hope you will accept my apologies for misinterpreting your statement. I was not intentionally trying to twist your meaning. It just looked like you were urging a lawsuit. and I called it as I saw it. I now have a more nuanced appreciation of your views.

Third, you stated,

You make an unwarranted and inaccurate assumption when you believe that I wish to, ". . .see libel suits flourish." What I wish is that people would treat each other with dignity and respect and equity and that when they don't that they suffer the consequences of such lack.

Later you said:

You have no idea of what the state of the law is in this country! . . . Your arguments are pure wishful thinking.

You were right to inform everyone that you are not a lawyer. You couldn't even play one on a soap opera!

Go back to your Gary North bashing. That's an appropriate forum for psuedo intellects such as yourselves.

Is this an example of what you meant when you said you wanted to see people treat each other with dignity and respect? Interesting. I admit that I am no legal expert, but I have taken two classes in business law at Cornell University and I have done a lot of reading about libel law. I think I know a bit more about the law than you give me credit for.

Hardliner, have you ever heard of a SLAPP suit? It is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. It is often used by corporations or the wealthy to shut up activist citizens. It involves frivolous charges such as libel or interference of contract to intimidate opponents. This phenomena is thoroughly covered in SLAPPS: Getting Sued for Speaking Out, a book by George W. Pring and Penelope Canan. The book covers many case studies where people were intimidated to shut up, despite the fact that they were telling the truth. According to Pring and Canan: [SLAPP] suits are not ordinary [lawsuits] because they do not use the courts as an end in themselves, as a normal decision-making body. Rather, they use court leverage to empower one side of a political dispute and to transform it unilaterally. You may think you are speaking out against a city zoning permit for an unwanted toxic waste dump in your town. then suddenly, "city hall" becomes "courtroom"; "zoning" becomes "slander"; "permit denial" becomes "$1,000,000 in damages." The magic wand of a SLAPP has conjured you away from the place where your issue could be resolved, completely changed what issues can be discussed, and increased the stakes with a wholly unexpected monetary risk. Normally thought of as the protectors of constitutional and political rights, courts are being used, in SLAPPs to transform public political disputes into private judicial disputes, to the unfair advantage of one side and the disadvantage of the other.

According to New York trial Judge J. Nicholas Colabella SLAPPs are

suits without substantial merit that are brought to "stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so" . . . SLAPP suits function by forcing the target into the judicial arena where the SLAPP filer foists upon the target the expenses of a defense. The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism. Needless to say, an ultimate disposition in favor of the target often amounts merely to a Pyrrhic victory. Those who lack the financial resources and emotional stamina to play out the "game" face the difficult choice of defaulting despite meritorious defenses or being brought to their knees to settle. The ripple effect of such suits in our society is enormous. Persons who have been outspoken on issues of public importance targeted in such suits or who have witnessed such suits will often choose in the future to stay silent. Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.

I was SLAPPED because I revealed fraud by corrupt board members of Paracelsian, a small biotech company. I received a threatening letter by Paracelsian's lawyer which I posted on a site devoted to Paracelsian stockholders. I mention this only as background for you to understand the posts in the following two links. Please read the linked posts, they describe the SLAPP phenomena better than anything I can write:

Book Review Part 1

Book Review Part 2

For the record, I will state once again that there was no justification for any of the charges raised in the lawyer's letter. You can believe that or not. I don't care. But the stockholders who read my postings believed that I was telling them the truth. I have a feeling you don't believe a word I say, Hardliner, so I invite you to start reading post #3345 and continue for the next 20 posts or so. There is no longer a legal threat against me since the entire Board of Directors of Paracelsian resigned in January 1998 and was replaced by a thoroughly competent board of new directors whose integrity is beyond question.

The following discussion of a lawsuit between Cowles and Jennex is strictly theoretical. I have no reason to believe Cowles would sue Jennex. He didn't even threaten a suit. Hardliner, I will grant you that a suit between Cowles and Jennex would not be as economically one-sided as a suit between a corporation and an individual. Cowles would not have the overwhelming economic leverage that a corporation would have. So in that regard it differs from many SLAPP suits. Yet like a SLAPP suit it would almost certainly stifle the free flow of information. Most lawyers would advise Jennex not to make any comments about Cowles while litigation was underway.

Hardliner, you wrote:

He characterized both Gary North and Rick Cowles in a derogatory manner and in general "spoke down" to everyone here. I think that he should be allowed to do the same thing in a courtroom and either prove his allegations or suffer the consequences.

Now ordinarily I would consider this no big deal, but we are discussing matters which could conceivably be life or death matters to many who might be reading this forum. Listening to the advice of one or the other of these two could well mean anything from nothing at all to fatal consequences. I simply don't see it as being in anyone's interest to discredit the other viewpoint. It's really the same issue as the NERC secrecy policy; let the one who will ultimately be affected by the information decide for himself. He is the one who will pay the consequences or reap the rewards, so he should be allowed to evaluate all the information for himself.

I agree with much of what you say but reach a very different conclusion than you do. It is precisely because this is a matter of life or death that Jennex should be allowed to question Cowles' credibility and credentials. It is up to each reader to decide where the truth lies. If lawsuits are used to suppress opinions and stifle debates then the free speech in this forum could be jeopardized. If Cowles could use a lawsuit to gag Jennex then what is to prevent NERC from using a lawsuit to intimidate anyone who questions the validity of their statistics? Everyone who says NERC is lying could be subjected to the same tactics. Not everyone will knuckle under. Some will continue to speak there mind. I have a hunch that you would not be intimidated, Hardliner. But others would be and the quality of the debate would be much poorer.

I grant you that not all libel suits are frivolous and there should be some place for libel suits within society. But the Burnett suit against the National Enquirer was over an article alleging that she was drunk and boisterous at a restaurant. I have no problem with the Burnett victory because it did not stifle speech involving an issue that affected the public welfare. We would not lose much as a society if such defamatory speech was suppress. The speech in question involved a purely private affair and does not deserve the same protection as speech involving public issues.

So what recourse should someone who is involved in a public issues debate have if he thinks he has been slandered? He can stand his ground and defend himself on the level playing field of ideas. He can present evidence that statement that he perceives to be slanderous is false and outrageous. He can present evidence of his credentials. And then he can let the readers decide for themselves who to believe.

I conclude with a n example of just what I mean. Peter de Jager faced this dilemma after he wrote his "Doomsday Avoided" article. Here de Jager writes about recent messages he's received:

Inevitably, some messages started "You've obviously sold out and are being paid to tone down the discussion." (sigh) I've been accused day and night for the past 8 years of selling out, first to the vendors, and now to the 'establishment.' It's become a rather old and tired argument with little substance. I have no real defense against this attack. I cannot 'prove' my opinions are my own. Those who wish to believe this accusation can choose to do so. Those who know me personally know, without a shadow of a doubt, this is not the case. As I said before, what choice do I have but to speak the truth as I see it?

Whether you agree with de Jager's new outlook or not, you have to admit that the way he is handling criticism is classy. This is how defamatory statements about people involved in public issues should be handled.

Robin S. Messing

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 20, 1999.

Robin Messing,

Again you either twist my meaning or misunderstand. I did not simply express a desire to see the matter in court, I said that I hoped that Cowles sued. If I say that I hope the Yankees win the pennant, that is clearly not the same as urging them to do so. If I say that I hope the bank robbers are apprehended, that clearly is not the same as urging the police to go out and catch them. There is nothing subtle about my statement. It is simple English.

You yet again, "spin" or misunderstand with your question, "Is this an example of what you meant when you said you wanted to see people treat each other with dignity and respect?"

What I said was, ". . .what I wish is that people would treat each other with dignity and respect and equity. . ."

Your posting on the GNBFI forum titled, Gentlemen, come out fighting!, says the following: "It looks like the doomers could have an argument amongst themselves." And further on says, "This should make a more interesting battle than the Lennox-Hollyfield rematch. In this corner we have Robert Cook saying that the utilities, the government, and the news media can lie with impunity without fearing liability. In the opposing corner we have this annonymous poster saying that cpr, og, moron, doc polly and others can be held liable for making their optimistic pronouncements on the internet. Gentlemen, come out fighting!"

The "dignity and respect" in which you hold the members of this forum that you collectively refer to as, "doomers" is quite clear. Your later question to me conveniently leaves out the "equity" part of my statement. My response to you was an equitable one, returning the level of dignity and respect that you had set by your previous post (which you referred all on this forum to!).

Yes, Robin. This is exactly what I meant in my remarks about treating each other with dignity and respect and equity.

Now I have no wish to downplay the value of the two courses in business law that you undertook. You undoubtedly learned much of value in them and Cornell is a fine institution with an excellent and well deserved reputation. However, the only ways in which you could obtain a comprehensive understanding of the current state of libel law in our society would be to follow a course of action similar to the following: Consult a legal encyclopedia such as Corpus Juris or American Jurisprudence, read the material on libel law, and using the case citations in the annotations, Shepardize them for each separate jurisdiction that exists and collate and summarize the results, or barring that, you could subject yourself to the tutelage of a qualified and knowledgeable jurist who had done so.

The generalized information that is presented, even in law school courses in a particular field of law, is only that; a generalized guide. American law (with the notable exception of Louisiana) is based on the principle of Stare Decisis, which means roughly, "let the decision stand". The true and current state of the law in any particular is dynamic and non-uniform and depends solely on the latest decision of an appellate court in any particular jurisdiction.

Perhaps a practicing attorney who specializes in libel law could be considered to be knowledgeable about the "current state of the law", in a specific jurisdiction. It is my considered opinion that no one has an exact perception of such for even "most" jurisdictions. A professor of law (at a school such as Cornell) would probably come the closest to having such knowledge. I think it not much of a stretch to say that you have not. Your postulation of various "duties" that the utilities have is nothing approaching reality. Spend a little time in Cornell's fine law library and educate yourself about what a utility corporation might be responsible for.

I understand SLAPP suits and hold them to be a misuse of the legal process. The fact that wealthy and powerful entities in our society do, and always have, misuse the law is hardly news. The solution is a counter-suit for misuse of process, but that truly begs the question if the resources of the opponents are greatly unequal. I believe such suits to be morally and ethically wrong and legally wrong as well. I do not, however, have a solution to the problem that they present.

The question arises in my mind however, as to why you should argue so strenuously against SLAPP suits when one of the main tenets of your arguments against Robert Cook's contention that corporations will not be penalized seems to be that corporations will, one way or another, be held responsible, or liable or called to account in some manner. You can't have it both ways.

Whether or not I believe you concerning your experiences is completely irrelevant. It is irrelevant to the corporation that you were involved with in all possible ways and it is irrelevant to the discussion here. In point of fact, it had not even occurred to me to disbelieve you because there is no possible advantage or motive that I can see to dishonesty on your part.

Your attempt to "grant" me something that a suit involving Cowles, et al. would not be, is not only an attempt to grant something that I did not hold to, but it is incorrect. Cowles has a cause of action against not only Jennex, but also against his employer, Southern California Edison. Your comments regarding economics seem inappropriate in any case as you have not presented any evidence that Cowles would be financially disadvantaged. I think it entirely likely that appropriate counsel would take on such a case on a contingency basis. (Hint: read up on the "Deeper Pocket" doctrine)

I would agree with you if Jennex had questioned Cowles' credentials or expertise. He did not. He quite plainly stated that Cowles was a "so called expert" and that he (Cowles) really didn't have a clue as to what was really out there. That is a definitive statement, not a question.

You misstate the issues if you construe Jennex's words as going to the public issues surrounding Y2K as it may relate to electric power production. Jennex's words go directly to Cowles' reputation and expertise. As such, they are entitled to no special protection, either ethically or at law (as far as I am aware).

Your question as to remedy when one has been slandered is redundant. It is clearly a remedy at law. Mr. Cowles has requested in a far more civil manner than I would have that Jennex retract his words. To be astute, Jennex should have done so, for by failing such, he has continued his employer at risk as well as himself. That is not, I would think, a smart move in any case. Further, Jennex's words, ". . .If Rick is a true expert. . .", dig his hole deeper by admitting that Cowles may be an expert even though he originally stated that he was not. As I said, Robin, it wouldn't even make a soap opera courtroom script.

Your use of de Jager as an example of "classy" anything is, I would think, unfortunate for your credibility. One who publicly corresponds with the president and then publicly ignores the substance of such correspondence is not my idea of "class".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 21, 1999.

Hardliner,

I must say that I am quite impressed by your legal acumen. Are you a lawyer? If not, then you certainly know enough to bluff someone into thinking that you are.

I think at least some of the disagreement that has arisen between us is a result of this medium. Misunderstandings can arise over the internet which would not occur in a face to face discussion. Sometimes the same sentence can have two completely different meanings when said under different circumstances or with a different tone of voice or facial expression. Here is an example:

I hope Rick sues you and Southern California Edison and that the courts see fit to award punitive damages in direct proportion to the fact that your ill considered attack on Mr. Cowles has been published to the entire planet.

You clarified this statement by informing me that this was a statement of hope on your part and not a statement urging Cowles to file a lawsuit. I accept your clarification. But I want you to know why I misinterpreted it in the first place.

Imagine this scenario: A husband and wife gets into a fight. The wife turns to the husband and says, "I hope you are arrested and sent to jail, you asshole!" Is this an urging? Obviously not. It is a statement of hope since there is no possibility that the husband will be arrested in this situation.

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. A neighbor hears a violent argument and calls the cops. A couple of cops show up at the door and enter the apartment. The wife turns to the husband and says, "I hope you are arrested and sent to jail, you asshole!" Is this an abstract statement of hope or is she urging the cops to arrest the husband? I submit it is a statement of urging since the cops are right there. They can hear her wishes and they have the power to make an arrest. The difference between the first and the second scenario is the audience that hears the statement and the power that the members of the audience possess.

If you had sent me an e-mail saying that you hoped Cowles sued Jennex, the thought that you might be urging Cowles to take such action would not have entered my mind. If the argument between Cowles and Jennex had arisen on another thread and if you had inserted a link from this thread to that other thread and said that you hoped Cowles would sue Jennex, I would not have interpreted it as an urging because I would not assume that Cowles was reading your statement. The situation as it stands, is quite different. Cowles and Jennex had their argument on this thread. There is every reason to believe that Cowles was reading the fallout of the argument and would read your statement. Because Cowles was in the audience and because he had the power to bring a suit if he chose to do so, I interpreted your statement as an urging. I now know I was wrong and I apologize for the misunderstanding. I hope you will accept the apology and realize that I was not intentionally trying to twist your words.

You yet again, "spin" or misunderstand with your question, "Is this an example of what you meant when you said you wanted to see people treat each other with dignity and respect?"

What I said was, ". . .what I wish is that people would treat each other with dignity and respect and equity. . ."

Your posting on the GNBFI forum titled, Gentlemen, come out fighting!, says thefollowing: "It looks like the doomers could have an argument amongst themselves." And further on says, "This should make a more interesting battle than the Lennox-Hollyfield rematch. In this corner we have Robert Cook saying that the utilities, the government, and the news media can lie with impunity without fearing liability. In the opposing corner we have this anonymous poster saying that cpr, og, moron, doc polly and others can be held liable for making their optimistic pronouncements on the internet. Gentlemen, come out fighting!"

The "dignity and respect" in which you hold the members of this forum that you collectively refer to as, "doomers" is quite clear. Your later question to me conveniently leaves out the "equity" part of my statement. My response to you was an equitable one, returning the level of dignity and respect that you had set by your previous post (which you referred all on this forum to!).

Yes, Robin. This is exactly what I meant in my remarks about treating each other with dignity and respect and equity.

Well, if you want to talk about respect, I hardly think that the anonymous poster who posted on the BFI was respectful. He asked if "cpr, og, moron, doc polly, and the others " who posted on the board could be held liable if y2k was worse than we had predicted. I don't know who this "og" fellow is that he was talking about, but the name of the third guy on the list should be "Morgan", not "moron". And I viewed his post as a pathetically weak attempt to get the pollys to tone down there message. So this "doomer" started out by dissing the "pollys". I happened to see Robert Cook's opinion that NERC and the utilities would not be held accountable for lying and I thought the two different views of liability were humorous when juxtaposed next to each other. I don't harbor disrespect for most who post here. I may find some of the opinions expressed humorous, but I don't disrespect them as people. On the other hand, I do not have any respect for the anonymous poster who started this. Posting anonymously, name calling, and pathetic attempts to shut people up are not the best way to inspire respect. I posted the two links here referring to the BFI forum so that Robert Cook or others could join in the discussion over there if they chose to do so. I did not mean to show Robert Cook any disrespect, and if he thinks I was disrespecting him I offer my sincere apologies.

Of course there are varying levels of disrespect. While I was attempting to poke fun at the anonymous poster in the "Gentleman, come out fighting" post, I never told him to go back where he came from or insinuated that he had no business posting on the BFI board. As far as I'm concerned, anyone is welcome to post there. I realize that CPR does not make it a very welcoming place, but that's an issue that people should take up with him, not me.

As for you, Hardliner, you have earned my respect. Though I disagree with your analysis of the law, you clearly know what you are talking about. I don't think your knowledge of psychology is as good as your knowledge of the law. I read enough of The Games People Play to get a good chuckle at your description of my BFI post as "Let's You And He Fight". Superficially, it does look like this game. But the underlying motivation of my post had nothing to do with a woman trying to get two men fighting over her. Though my name is Robin, I am a heterosexual male and you totally missed the mark in your diagnosis. (think Robin Williams, Robin Yount). I just thought the two opposing opinions were humorous and that was my way of juxtaposing them to emphasize the humor in the situation. Nothing more should be read into it.

Now, back to libel law. Of course I realize that l libel law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and that it changes over time. I have read most of Rodney Smolla's Law of Defamation. He points out how the law may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But the basic underlying concepts are pretty much the same wherever you go, and the threat of libel suits can and does cause people to censor themselves, even if it jeopardizes the well-being of others who need important information that they have to offer. You asked me originally:

Libel law, however is our society's attempt to provide a remedy for those who have been wronged by another in a public forum. The most relevant fact about either libel or slander is that truth is a complete defense. . . .

I find it curious that you view the libel laws as suppressing information. Your complaints of legal fees notwithstanding, expensive counsel is simply not needed if you have told the truth. All that is suppressed is inaccurate information. If you have told the simple truth, your defense is absolute and in the event that you have retained counsel, you will find the court ordering the plaintiff to pay your counsel's fees when all is said and done.

And I repeat my assertion that people are intimidated by libel threats from speaking, even if they know that what they want to say is the truth. Mostly they are intimidated by the expense of a lawyer. But even if they could afford a lawyer, justice is not always done in the courtroom. There are times when better justice can be found by flipping a coin than going through the court procedure. Proof? OJ Simpson. Need I say more? So the average Joe may not want to risk his economic well-being on a crapshoot even if he has the money to hire a lawyer. The risk may not be worth it to him so he just censors himself.

Do you want proof of this? Try this post from Ed Yourdon.

So why don't I provide make, model, and other precise details of these examples? You may or may not be aware of the most common answer: threats of litigation from the vendors. I was threatened by a lawsuit from one vendor when I planned to mention the company and product (including version number)in our Time Bomb 2000 book, even though the vendor's web site clearly indicated that the product was not compliant. I've got friends who work on Y2K projects who have been told that they will be summarily fired if they even disclose the size of their company's code portfolio; the amount of fear, loathing, and paranoia within the Y2K arena is amazing. As a consequence, the nondisclosure agreements that we consultants are required by our clients to sign are even tighter for Y2K projects than normal.

Now, Ed Yourdon must be making plenty of money through the sale of his books, consulting fees, and marketing of y2k survival products. I doubt that the ability to afford a lawyer is that big an issue for him. So why was he intimidated to shut up if he was telling the truth? After all, truth is an absolute defense in court. I am guessing he didn't want to jeopardize everything he owned on a judicial game of chance.

(Hey, Ed. If you're reading this and if you have any views on libel law I would love to hear them.)

You might make the argument that Ed didn't want to talk because he might have signed a non-disclosure agreement with a vendor. But Ed said that the information that he wanted to discuss was on the vendor's web-site. It was public information! I don't see how a non-disclosure agreement can prevent him from citing information in the public domain. Ed would not have been disclosing anything new. So I must conclude that it was the threat of a libel suit that intimidated him.

I understand SLAPP suits and hold them to be a misuse of the legal process. The fact that wealthy and powerful entities in our society do, and always have, misuse the law is hardly news. The solution is a counter-suit for misuse of process, but that truly begs the question if the resources of the opponents are greatly unequal. I believe such suits to be morally and ethically wrong and legally wrong as well. I do not, however, have a solution to the problem that they present.

Hardliner, I strongly urge you to read SLAPPS: Getting Sued for Speaking Out by George W. Pring and Penelope Canan. In it you will find New York trial Judge J. Nicholas Colabella's saying this about SLAPPS:Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined. SLAPPS are more than just a misuse of legal process. They deprive the victim of the SLAPP suit the right to speak out and they prevent his potential audience from hearing information that may be essential to their well being. Harlan Ellison wrote a short story many years ago. It had nothing to do with libel law, but I can think of no better description of SLAPPS than the title: I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream!

The question arises in my mind however, as to why you should argue so strenuously against SLAPP suits when one of the main tenets of your arguments against Robert Cook's contention that corporations will not be penalized seems to be that corporations will, one way or another, be held responsible, or liable or called to account in some manner. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, I can have it both ways. You are comparing apples and oranges. Imagine a situation in which power goes off for more than a week. (I think it is unlikely to go off for more than a few days, even in a worst case scenario--see Dick Mills) In such a case hundreds of thousands could feeze to death, especially if we have a harsh winter. Don't you think there will be intense political pressure to open investigations as to why the outage occurred? Don't you think this pressure would be even more intense if people felt they were lied to by the electric industry? I don't know if these investigations would be done on the federal level or by state DA's or both, but I am sure that anyone who had anything to do with the NERC reports would come under close scrutiny. Even if the Utilities can't be held liable for failure to produce electricity, they could be held liable if people die because they intentionally lied in their reports to make things look better than they are.

The situation is very different in a SLAPP suit. I agree with you that companies that file frivolous SLAPPs can sometimes be made to pay, and pay heavily for their actions through SLAPPback suits. There have been a number of instances where the tables have been turned on SLAPPers and they have been forced to pay multimillion dollar fines. Unfortunately, much of the country does not have strong anti-SLAPP laws. In those areas the SLAPPer can SLAPP with impunity. All they have to lose is the original SLAPP suit. And that's ok with them because their intention was never to win in court to begin with. Their purpose may have been to get community activists who wanted to stop a mall from being built on a certain piece of land to shut up. If they can shut the activists up by tying them up in court for years they will get to build their mall unopposed. So what if they lose their case court? They will have achieved theirmain objective--building a mall without pesky activists in the way. Even in jurisdictions with strong Anti-SLAPP laws, a powerful corporate officers may be willing to risk the possibility of a multi-million dollar settlement against their corporation if they think the probability of such a result is small. That may be determined by their evaluation of the number of activists that oppose them and their evaluation of the willingness of the activists to fight it out in court. If the corporate officers think the activists don't have the resources or the intestinal fortitude to fight it out in court they may go ahead with the SLAPP anyway. And if the project they want to build is sufficiently large they may be willing to pay a multimillion dollar settlement as the cost of doing business.

The situation is very different with NERC lying in their reports. After the dust has settled, it won't just be a handful of activists against NERC. It would be governmental bodies doing investigations. Subpoenaing NERC's internal doctrines and comparing NERC officials' actions with their words. I wouldn't be surprised if they inquire "Did you ever buy a generator for your family and when did you buy it?" The investigation will be thorough and complete or else there will be howls of protest from the people if the blackouts are lengthy. And if the government finds that NERC officials intentionally lied to cover up the situation they will be liable. Perhaps the liability might even be that of criminally negligent homicide or unintentional manslaughter--depending on the jurisdiction and just how intentional the data doctoring was. So there are two very distinct differences between the NERC situation and the SLAPP situation. 1) At worst, those guilty of SLAPPs will receive fines. If NERC officials doctored data to confuse the public they could go to jail. 2)The likelihood of a governmental investigation after a severe and prolonged power outage is high. Such an investigation could lead to criminal charges. The likelihood that an activist will actually have the intestinal fortitude to fight it out in court is somewhat lower.

Your comments regarding economics seem inappropriate in any case as you have not presented any evidence that Cowles would be financially disadvantaged. I think it entirely likely that appropriate counsel would take on such a case on a contingency basis. (Hint: read up on the "Deeper Pocket" doctrine)

I'm not sure I understand the point of this paragraph. I never said Cowles would be financially disadvantaged. If anything, in my discussion of SLAPP suits, my sympathy was for the target of the SLAPP suit's economic burden. If Cowles sued Jennex, Cowles would not be the target. Did you mean to say "Jennex" instead of Cowles in this passage. If so, I agree with your point. In fact, I made it first:

Hardliner, I will grant you that a suit between Cowles and Jennex would not be as economically one-sided as a suit between a corporation and an individual. Cowles would not have the overwhelming economic leverage that a corporation would have. So in that regard it differs from many SLAPP suits. Yet like a SLAPP suit it would almost certainly stifle the free flow of information. Most lawyers would advise Jennex not to make any comments about Cowles while litigation was underway.

I would agree with you if Jennex had questioned Cowles' credentials or expertise. He did not. He quite plainly stated that Cowles was a "so called expert" and that he (Cowles) really didn't have a clue as to what was really out there. That is a definitive statement, not a question.

You misstate the issues if you construe Jennex's words as going to the public issues surrounding Y2K as it may relate to electric power production. Jennex's words go directly to Cowles' reputation and expertise. As such, they are entitled to no special protection, either ethically or at law (as far as I am aware).

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Everything involved with the debate over whether we will have electricity in the year 2000 is very much a matter of public concern. What Cowles says carries more weight than most because he is perceived to be an expert by many of the public. As such, his status as an expert is open to public comment or even ridicule. Suppose I were to portray myself as an expert in the utility field, despite the fact that I have no expertise whatsoever. Then suppose I had somehow convinced a lot of people that I was an expert and that I thought there was absolutely no problems with the electric utility industry. Suppose I tried to use my status as a perceived expert to convince the public that they had no need to prepare for any problems. Should my status as an expert be open to challenge? Should it be open to ridicule? Should those from the peanut gallery be able to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" Of course, and that right to openly ridicule me shouldn't depend on your ability to fork out enough money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself against a libel suit. This is especially so if my word carries a lot of weight in the minds of the laymen who follow me. The debate over y2k and the utility industry is very much a public issue, and Cowles status is so large in the public debate that it can not be separated from the debate itself. Therefore it should not be exempt from open criticism. I may be wrong on this point as a matter of law in some jurisdictions. Undoubtedly some courts would rule against my postion. But I suspect some courts would rule in favor of my position. In any case, I use the word "should" in an ethical, not a legal sense.

Your question as to remedy when one has been slandered is redundant. It is clearly a remedy at law. Mr. Cowles has requested in a far more civil manner than I would have that Jennex retract his words. To be astute, Jennex should have done so, for by failing such, he has continued his employer at risk as well as himself. That is not, I would think, a smart move in any case. Further, Jennex's words, ". . .If Rick is a true expert. . .", dig his hole deeper by admitting that Cowles may be an expert even though he originally stated that he was not.

I must say that Cowles' civil restraint is admirable. He did not (at least overtly) threaten Jennex with a lawsuit, though it is certainly reasonable to see how Jennex may have construed Cowles' words as a threat. I don't have any problems with the way Cowles behaved in this matter. However, the best (IMHO) possible resolution would be for Cowles to tell Jennex to put up or shut up. I would like to see Jennex back up his allegations with specific examples of why he didn't think Cowles was an expert. Cowles would then present his credentials and attack Jennex's examples and show why they were weak, poorly contrived, or irrelevant. Then each of us in the audience could decide who was telling the truth and who had the hidden agenda. We may even decide that the truth did not reside entirely on either side. Perhaps we might decide that Cowles was a world class expert on many aspects of the utility industry but his knowledge was weak in other areas.

I disagree that Jennex's words If Rick is a true expert. is an admission that Cowles may indeed be an expert. Suppose John Doe claimed to be God and I made the statement "If John is God then I can put a bullet through his head without hurting him." Does such a statement indicate that I believe there is even a remote chance that I think John is God? I don't think so.

You wrote:

As I said, Robin, it wouldn't even make a soap opera courtroom script.

I am crushed. I was really hoping for a part if they did a remake of Night Court. Don't you think I would make a good "Bull". :-)

-- Robin S. Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 23, 1999.

Robin Messing,

It looks like you missed the boat again in a few places, but then it looks like I did also, so once more. . .

Although it is apparent that a medium such as the internet may leave something to be desired as a communications channel, your example of the domestic dispute does not demonstrate what you say that it does. In order for the wife to urge the police to arrest the husband, she must express more than a mere "hope" that he is arrested. In most jurisdictions that I know anything about, she must actually sign a criminal complaint, or at least promise to do so. The cops would either respond, "Are you gonna sign a complaint, lady, or not?" or "Lady, we've got no choice. We have to arrest him." If my hopes to the effect that the Yankees win the pennant are made in their presence, it is still different than urging them to do so. If I "hope" that the bank robbers are caught in the presence of the police, it is certainly not the same as urging them to go out and catch them. Still, I understand your meaning, and I think that you understand mine. That is more than is usual.

On the matter of respect however, you clearly have two different standards. On the one hand, you wish to justify your disparagement of a group as "doomers" with the anonymous posting of a third party ("I do not have any respect for the anonymous poster who started this.") On the other hand, you disclaim any responsibility for the character of the GNBFI forum and direct complaints to CPR.

The name of this game is responsibility and accountability for your own behavior. My words to you were written in light of what you had said, not what any third party had said. The character of your words, by your own admission, were in response to the writings of a third party (". . .I was attempting to poke fun at the anonymous poster. . ."). Your postings on the GNBFI forum contribute to the character of that forum exactly as mine do to this one. You may not, in fairness, lay it all at the feet of CPR.

It also seems to me that you missed Dr. Berne's boat. I never imagined you to be a woman and I'm sure that if you re-read Dr. Berne's description of the game, you will note that he says something to the effect that, "one of the most recognized examples" is the situation of a woman manipulating two men into confrontation while she exits the scene with a third. The essence of the game is not sexual Robin, it is manipulative. By arranging for two opponents to engage each other, one frees oneself for other pursuits and damages both opponents. Now it may well be that you, ". . .just thought the two opposing opinions were humorous and that was my way of juxtaposing them to emphasize the humor in the situation.", but your words, "This should make a more interesting battle than the Lennox-Hollyfield rematch" would lead most ordinary readers to conclude that you would find some value in witnessing such a confrontation. In any case, to expect the subjects of your post to view it as a neutral writing is a bit much.

Your arguments that the threats of a lawsuit are intimidating simply go to the nature of apes; hairless or otherwise. People believe that the owners of a parking lot are not responsible for the safety of their auto either, simply because the claim check says so. Society does not have, and I do not believe should have, any responsibility to protect its members from their own ignorance, gullibility or failure to call another's bluff. Your solution of the two contentious parties resolving the issue with each other is exactly what our system of laws is intended to prevent. Imperfect it is, but the alternative is not acceptable to most. Can you imagine Ron Goldman's father and O.J. "settling" that case?

You seem to have missed Ed Yourdon's point as well. He clearly says that the issue is non disclosure agreements and does not even hint at libel law. Truth is no defense against breach of contract, and that is what a non disclosure agreement is. You may quite legally promise not to discuss a subject as a contractual matter and it seems clear to me that this is what Ed refers to (". . .the nondisclosure agreements that we consultants are required by our clients to sign are even tighter for Y2K projects than normal.") and so what you perceive as Ed's fear of a libel suit is most likely his realization that he was contractually bound to forego discussion of the subject and that the threatened lawsuit would be justified legally, even if it made no sense in that the subject matter was already public.

Robin, you're "preaching to the choir" about SLAPP suits. I am also a fan of Ellison's and have read the story you refer to and agree that the title is an appropriate description of SLAPP suits.

I am not comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand you argue that SLAPP suits allow rich and/or powerful entities to "buy" the law. On the other hand you argue that the electric utilities (rich and/or powerful by any standards) will not be able to do so. I suggest also that you have an altruistic and unrealistic perception of the concern and regard in which our government holds the populace and the value that is placed on their lives. Are you suggesting that our government will pursue justice and equity as it did in the case of Agent Orange or the Dow implants or the Syphilis Experiment or any of hundreds of other similar situations? Come on Robin! No one is that naive.

I think that I missed the boat when I didn't explain more clearly why I found your comments about economic concerns in libel suits inappropriate. The point that you seemed to be pushing was that the target was often disadvantaged in a libel suit by lack of finances. In the hypothetical case at issue, the target was not only Jennex, but his employer, Southern California Edison and the idea of their being financially disadvantaged was simply not realistic. Any economic advantage would be overwhelmingly on the side of SCE and Jennex, yet the suit would still be between a corporation (and others) and an individual.

Your arguments to ridicule, criticism and challenge are all fair arguments, but they unfortunately do not fit the facts of the instant case. To say that someone is a "bad" surgeon is criticism; to say that he is a "so called surgeon" is slander. To say that someone is a "goofy engineer" is ridicule; to say that he is a "so called engineer" is slander. To say that someone's medical opinion is screwy and unsupported" is challenge; to say that they "don't have a clue" is slander. Despite your words to the contrary, the messenger's qualifications are not subject to public definition, but only to question, challenge and yes, even ridicule. Furthermore, in general the law holds one to the standards of the qualifications that they profess. For example, if a man impersonates a physician, and botches the job, he will be held liable to the same extent as if he actually had been a doctor. I suspect that the reasoning here is solid. My brother, who is a dental surgeon, says often that his patients are not qualified to evaluate his skills. This is quite correct and it is equally correct that few of us are qualified to evaluate Mr. Cowles skills. That, I suspect, is why there are licensing boards and qualification examinations and why one is held to the standards of the level of expertise that they hold themselves out to posses.

Your argument about "shooting God" would make a perfect insanity defense to any of several levels of homicide! As for Jennex's words to Cowles, you're quite correct in thinking that some courts would rule one way and others another. Such is American jurisprudence.

As to your disappointment, I would think it would be to your greatest advantage to stay out of both courtrooms and soap operas.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), March 23, 1999.

Hardliner, sorry for taking so long to respond but I have been busy and I am not a very fast writer.

On the matter of respect however, you clearly have two different standards. On the one hand, you wish to justify your disparagement of a group as "doomers" with the anonymous posting of a third party ("I do not have any respect for the anonymous poster who started this.") On the other hand, you disclaim any responsibility for the character of the GNBFI forum and direct complaints to CPR.

The name of this game is responsibility and accountability for your own behavior. My words to you were written in light of what you had said, not what any third party had said. The character of your words, by your own admission, were in response to the writings of a third party (". . .I was attempting to poke fun at the anonymous poster. . ."). Your postings on the GNBFI forum contribute to the character of that forum exactly as mine do to this one. You may not, in fairness, lay it all at the feet of CPR.

I don't feel like I have anything to apologize for in my posts on the GNBFI board. You seem to extrapolate my lack of respect for the anonymous poster to a lack of respect for those who post in this forum. Not so. I do not disrespect the anonymous poster because he believes y2k will be an absolute disaster. I disrespect him because of the way he came onto the GNBFI forum and tried to use intimidating tactics rather than argue his case logically. I did use the term "doomers" to refer to those in this forum. While I admit that is not the most respectful term, I hardly believe it is all that disrespectful. If you want to call me a polly--fine. That term doesn't piss me off in the least. These are shorthand discriptive terms. They can be used perjoratively but the terms in themselves have no more perjorative meaning than "conservative right winger" or "liberal leftest." I guess different people have different sensitivities to these things. What I find disrespectful is when certain "doomers" come onto the GNBFI board and curse and swear at those posting there and gloat over how they would like to see the people who post there die. This sort of behavior can and does happen. If I had come on this thread and laughed at everyone here for being an idiot wasting their money and called them a bunch of Chicken Littles--well then your comment to go back to the GNBFI board may have been appropriate. As it is I think your response was an overreaction to my posting. There are times when a thick skin and a sense of humor is helpful.

As far as my contribution to the overall tone of the GNBFI board--I believe I have been respectful to those who have posted there with opposing views (with the exception of the anonymous poster). You might want to check out some more of my other posts before jumping to conclusions.

Your arguments that the threats of a lawsuit are intimidating simply go to the nature of apes; hairless or otherwise. People believe that the owners of a parking lot are not responsible for the safety of their auto either, simply because the claim check says so. Society does not have, and I do not believe should have, any responsibility to protect its members from their own ignorance, gullibility or failure to call another's bluff. Your solution of the two contentious parties resolving the issue with each other is exactly what our system of laws is intended to prevent. Imperfect it is, but the alternative is not acceptable to most. Can you imagine Ron Goldman's father and O.J. "settling" that case?

Are you telling me that society has absolutely NO interest in protecting the weak from the strong. That if you are poor you should be allowed to be put in a situation where you can lose everything by asserting your free speach rights? Sure, the corporation threatening you with libel could be bluffing--but they might not be. If their intent is to tie you up in court long enough to build a project then they might not be bluffing and many people do not have the fortitude to go ahead with the fight. I am saying that it is very much in society's interest that a level playing field be maintained--otherwise self censorship by the weak can prevent others from learning information that may be valuable to their economic or physical well being.

Your bringing up O.J. and Ron Goldman "settling" this case on their own has nothing to do with libel law. I brought up OJ as an illustration that the court system does not always reach a fair verdict. Even if a person knows he is telling the truth he may not want to risk everything on judicial roulette. I never said that O.J. and Ron Goldman should have "settled" their difference out of court. Settling their difference out of court would most likely involve violence--i.e. "street justice". Such "differences of opinion" most certainly should not be settled out of court.

Situations involving libel is a totally different matter. "Settling out of court" doesn't mean taking a knife to your opponent. Instead, it means countering your opponent's accusations and spin with your own information. Rather than dragging the fight into the court it should be settled out in the open. The best antidote for speech that is distasteful is counterspeech. This is known as defending one's honor on a level playing field. Society has an interest in maintaining a level playing field-- especially in regards to issues that affect the public welfare.

When lawyers charge over $100/hour--often much more than $100/hour-- there can be no level playing field. Just showing up on the field is painful for those on a limited budget. Unfortunately, the legal system is so complex that anyone who shows up in court without a lawyer is at a serious disadvantage-- even if he is the most truthful person in the world and even if he has proof of the truth. Unless he submits his proof in exactly the way the court wants it submitted or unless he phrases his questions and responses in exactly the way the court wants it phrased, a defendant may not even get to introduce his evidence into court.

Someone who "slanders" another without having facts to back up his "slanderous" accusations risks looking foolish and mean-spirited on the internet. If I were to call John Doe a "so called expert" and if Mr. Doe demonstrated his expertise and challenged my information and my motives, it is my reputation that would most likely suffer--not Mr. Doe's. And that is how it should be.

You seem to have missed Ed Yourdon's point as well. He clearly says that the issue is non disclosure agreements and does not even hint at libel law. Truth is no defense against breach of contract, and that is what a non disclosure agreement is. You may quite legally promise not to discuss a subject as a contractual matter and it seems clear to me that this is what Ed refers to (". . .the nondisclosure agreements that we consultants are required by our clients to sign are even tighter for Y2K projects than normal.") and so what you perceive as Ed's fear of a libel suit is most likely his realization that he was contractually bound to forego discussion of the subject and that the threatened lawsuit would be justified legally, even if it made no sense in that the subject matter was already public.

You might be right on this one. It might be that Yourdon didn't reveal his information about the vendor's noncompliance because he had signed a nondisclosure deal. However, it is not clear that this is the case. Read the paragraph over again. Ed said he wanted to put information in his book about a vendor's noncompliance and that information about this particular vendor's noncompliance was publicly available on the vendor's web site. He did not say whether he had worked for this particular vendor so it is hard to say whether he was silenced because he had signed a non-disclosure deal or whether he was silenced for fear of libel.

In any case--and this is just MHO of morality and not a statement of law--if Ed knows of a situation in which noncompliant systems could cause people to die and if he had any reason to believe those systems were not being corrected in time, then he has a MORAL obligation to reveal the information to the public and damn the non disclosure agreements. Yes, this could result in a lawsuit against him and it could result in personal loss, but there is a good chance that the threat of such a lawsuit is a bluff. If the vendor sued Yourdon it would look like it is trying to conduct a coverup. If the vendor is trying to minimize the publicity it receives over its noncompliance then launching a lawsuit would be the wrong tactic to follow. Yourdon would become a martyr and 60 Minutes and the Wall Street Journal would probably publicize his plight.

Yourdon might also reduce the probability that he would get into trouble by being clever in the way he revealed his life-saving information. I agree that he could get in trouble if he reveals the information in his book-for-profit. But suppose he is a bit more clever. Suppose he went up to Senator Bennett and said something like this:

"I have some information about y2k that could save a lot of people's lives. Unfortunately, I can't tell you what it is because I signed a non-disclosure agreement before I learned the information. Gee--I sure hope you don't subpeona me and ask a lot of questions. Then I would have to reveal that information or else I will be in contempt of Congress."

So now picture this: Bennett subpeonas Yourdon. Yourdon spills the beans. Do you really think a vendor will want to drag Yourdon into court where Yourdon can say "I had no choice. I was subpeonaed"? If the judge and jury find that the information Yourdon revealed was vital for the public to know to avoid unnecessary deaths, do you think that Yourdon would be punished harshly under these circumstances? It seems to me that it is likely he will face a nominal fine at most. These comments about Ed Yourdon's moral obligation also apply to any consultant who becomes aware of a noncompliant problem that wasn't being fixed quickly enough and that could adversely effect public health.

One more point I find curious: I am sure Ed Yourdon would like as much freedom as possible to write about how non compliant y2k embedded systems could endanger peoples' lives. I doubt he wants his hands tied any tighter than they need to be. So I find it interesting that he would sign a non-disclosure agreement that would forbid him from citing publicly available information about a particular vendor. Remember, there is supposed to be a tremendous shortage of skilled consultants who can fix the vendors' problems. I should think this would give Ed great bargaining power when it comes time to negotiate the terms of his working arrangement. If Ed wants to keep his freedom to write about how y2k could affect specific vendors, I don't see why he doesn't tell vendors who might use his services: Look, I'll be happy to keep secret anything I learn on the job about your company and its technolgy. I will not reveal company secrets. But I am a writer and I do not volunteer to forfeit my right to comment on publicly available information about your company. So if you want to hire me, agree to those terms. If not, good luck finding someone who can help you. You need me more than I need you. The market is so tight for skilled computer experts that you're the ones sticking your necks out if you don't hire me. A lot of companies aren't going to get their code fixed as it is, so I shouldn't have too hard a time trying to find a job on my terms.

You wrote:

I am not comparing apples and oranges. On the one hand you argue that SLAPP suits allow rich and/or powerful entities to "buy" the law. On the other hand you argue that the electric utilities (rich and/or powerful by any standards) will not be able to do so. I suggest also that you have an altruistic and unrealistic perception of the concern and regard in which our government holds the populace and the value that is placed on their lives. Are you suggesting that our government will pursue justice and equity as it did in the case of Agent Orange or the Dow implants or the Syphilis Experiment or any of hundreds of other similar situations? Come on Robin! No one is that naive.

To say that the government never covers things up would be naive. To say that it always cover things up would also be naive. If there is sufficient pressure by the people on the government then the government will conduct thorough investigations and pursue justice. If power is out for more than a week and hundreds of thousands of people die and millions of others are cold and miserable, you'd better believe there will be a thorough investigation and anyone who gets in the way will be crushed. Remember, 2000 is an election year and if we see widespread hardships then those trying to conduct a coverup will be out of office VERY fast. In recent elections politicians try to outmacho each other to show who was the toughest on crime. If y2k is really bad then I suspect the politicians will try to outmacho each other in trying to find "the culprits". NERC officials will come under close scrutiny for misleadingly optimistic statements.

I think that I missed the boat when I didn't explain more clearly why I found your comments about economic concerns in libel suits inappropriate. The point that you seemed to be pushing was that the target was often disadvantaged in a libel suit by lack of finances. In the hypothetical case at issue, the target was not only Jennex, but his employer, Southern California Edison and the idea of their being financially disadvantaged was simply not realistic. Any economic advantage would be overwhelmingly on the side of SCE and Jennex, yet the suit would still be between a corporation (and others) and an individual.

In the instant case we agree. However, I would like to make libel suits harder to bring to court and harder to win when dealing with public issuesbecause of the general chilling effect that libel suits have on free speach. The economic argument has little relvance in this case, but it does in many others.

Your arguments to ridicule, criticism and challenge are all fair arguments, but they unfortunately do not fit the facts of the instant case. To say that someone is a "bad" surgeon is criticism; to say that he is a "so called surgeon" is slander. To say that someone is a "goofy engineer" is ridicule; to say that he is a "so called engineer" is slander. To say that someone's medical opinion is screwy and unsupported" is challenge; to say that they "don't have a clue" is slander. Despite your words to the contrary, the messenger's qualifications are not subject to public definition, but only to question, challenge and yes, even ridicule. Furthermore, in general the law holds one to the standards of the qualifications that they profess. For example, if a man impersonates a physician, and botches the job, he will be held liable to the same extent as if he actually had been a doctor. I suspect that the reasoning here is solid. My brother, who is a dental surgeon, says often that his patients are not qualified to evaluate his skills. This is quite correct and it is equally correct that few of us are qualified to evaluate Mr. Cowles skills. That, I suspect, is why there are licensing boards and qualification examinations and why one is held to the standards of the level of expertise that they hold themselves out to posses.

You may be right as a matter of law, but I still maintain that this should not be the way the law works. Suppose Bill was bitten on the nose by a rattlesnake and posted a message on a board asking what he should do. Now suppose John responded a minute later saying "I am a doctor. You should tie a tournaquet around your neck to stop the blood flowing to your heart." Do I really have to say "Bill is giving screwy medical advice"? Must I avoid saying "Bill is a 'so called doctor who doesn't have a clue" for fear of being dragged into court for libel? Do I really need a lawyer to parse every word I write before posting? If that is the case then I and everyone on the internet should just shut up and avoid posting. This is why we should have maximum freedom to post about matters of public welfare. Too much self-censorship will result if we must always clear what we want to say with a $100+/hour lawyer before we post it. That is just my opinion and I suspect we will always disagree on this.

Your argument about "shooting God" would make a perfect insanity defense to any of several levels of homicide! As for Jennex's words to Cowles, you're quite correct in thinking that some courts would rule one way and others another. Such is American jurisprudence.

I think you are misreading the reason I brought up the "shooting God" argument. I was merely pointing out that the statement "IF condition A, THEN condition B" is not a concession that condition B is a feasable possiblity. Jennex said If Rick is a true expert than my comments should not affect his work prospects. You wrote: Further, Jennex's words, ". . .If Rick is a true expert. . .", dig his hole deeper by admitting that Cowles may be an expert even though he originally stated that he was not. My "God" reference was intended to show that you are reading an admission into Jennex's statement when no such admission was made.

I hope this brings an end to our debate. I think there are things we will simply have to disagree on and no amount of debating will change the other person's mind. I must say though, that I am most impressed by the quality of your responses and my hat is off to you for keeping it on such a high level.

Robin Messing

-- Robin Messing (rsm7@cornell.edu), March 30, 1999.