The following misrepresentation of my position appeared in the article Why The Power Will Fail In 2000 on the TimeBomb 2000 forum, posted by "Worried Utility Worker":

The April 9 drill was a PR stunt. Lane Core was right.

(The article was also posted to the Electric Utilities and Y2K forum, and Gary North picked it up. It has since been removed from both sites.)

I immediately posted the following at the Yourdon forum in the article April 9th NERC Electrical Utility Industry Drill:

I don't appreciate having my position misrepresented.

I also provided a link to what I myself had written about the drill: NERC's April 9 Y2K Drill: What It Is, And What It Is Not. In that essay, I had written this:

Far from being an event rigged to fool the public, the April 9th drill is part of exactly what we should hope the electrical utilities are doing: preparing and testing fall-back procedures to use in case of Y2K remediation failures.

(See also the version at Westergaard.)

Upon reading "Why The Power Will Fail In 2000", an outraged utility worker sent an e-mail to me in which he demanded that I explain myself "in the name of Truth"; he immediately apologized when he had the opportunity to read my real position.

I told him that Stephen Poole has misrepresented my position on the drill, and that the anonymous poster must have picked up on that. I was wrong.

Poole has admitted that he himself was the "Worried Utility Worker" who posted the hoax in which my position was misrepresented. His inexplicably gleeful exposition of his sophomoric prank is available at The Problem is Being Fixed: An Experiment in Journalism, where we read the following: "I am the author of this piece of fiction. I wrote it as a test and to prove a point."

Since one point proven by the hoax is that Poole has no scruples, he failed the test.

And he certainly owes me an apology.

Matthew 5:23-26

(See also Was this posted before? Sorry if it was, but this guy is a real ring-dinger (Cess Poole that is...) and Hoaxer 'fesses up (Re: "Why the power will fail").)

-- Lane Core Jr. (elcore@sgi.net), July 06, 1999

Answers

Lane,

I would say he owes quite a few people here an apology. We'll see if he does, or not. Or if he follows the guidelines of his faith. Or not.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Though you are certainly justified in requesting an apology, as in the case of Clinton, what good is an apology from a dishonorable man?

"He's as good as his word" works both ways. We now know how good Poole's word is, and I would suggest that any more words from him would have the same value.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), July 06, 1999.

Lane, Poole is not worth the effort. His background is in digital "control" systems!!! What a joke! Ooooooooh, his 25 YEARS of "practical hands-on experience" is probably like most others, 1 month of REAL experience repeated 300 times!

His reference to VCRs says it all!!!

br14

-- br14 (br14@bout.done), July 06, 1999.

I'm with Linda, a man is judged by his actions not his words. I'm not saying Pool(e) is beyond hope but it's going to take quite alot of positive action from that guy to make me ever trust a word he says. And no I don't consider debunking Y2K "survivalists" positive action.

-- Jack Gordon (TrnityTest@aol.com), July 06, 1999.

Lane,

Thanks for this post and keeping this matter current. This sort of blatant deception, by someone who is totally aware of the critical need for truthful information, is a travesty. I have long been suspicious of Poole, and his followers, and supporters, with regard to their eithics, morality, and character. It is instructive to see those who are still supporting Poole's criminal deception. The continued open support of someone like Poole marks that poster as no better, at the heart of it, than Poole himself. I have called for the barring of future Poole postings to this forum. See my comments on the thread listed "Was this posted before?........"

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), July 06, 1999.

While I think Stephen Poole's method was a bit extreme, I also think he was merely trying to make a point I have hammered on a number of times: YOU CAN NOT PUT ANY CREDENCE IN AN ANONYMOUS POST FROM AN UNKNOWN, ESP. WHEN THE UNKNOWN CLAIMS INSIDE INFORMATION.

If he was really trying to create a hoax, he would have made it far more bulletproof. Using a Phillips VCR part number? Do you think that was the only serial number he had access to?

He could as easily have claimed a problem in a common NIC card chip, saying it had problems assembling packets acceptable to a routing system post Y2K, if that system contained certain types of routers. Give a valid chip number, and how do you prove or disprove it, unless you have access to that type of router? Fact is, he made this one easy to debunk.

And then he admitted it was an experiment/hoax. He could have put it out as 'somebody I know admitted to me that he did this', but he didn't. He owned up to it.

I think the real reason people have blown up about this is because it rubbed your noses in the fragile nature of a lot of the Y2K information you have chosen to believe. Anyone who is basing an opinion on the outcome of Y2K on anon posts, is fooling themselves.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

I think YOU'RE making an awful lot of pitiful excuses for a pathetic human being....which says plenty about you, Davis (not that some of us needed ONE more of the many examples you've provided us with).

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 06, 1999.

Paul Davis,

To say that I am surprised at your defense of Poole is an understatement. To say that I am disappointed is not.

Your argument on his behalf is basically, "He told a simple, easily disproven lie. That is evidence that he wasn't trying to deceive anyone." Clearly your logic fails. Neither would it justify his actions if your conclusion were correct.

Your defense also raises the question, "Is he so incompetent that he cannot argue on his own behalf? I think that he is.

Poole shoots almost exclusively from the hip. His marksmanship is abysmal to non-existent. He definitely owes Lane a public apology and, as noted by Diane, a lot of others.

Reality intrudes however, and I must confess that I am not holding my breath waiting for such.

It seems both fair and accurate at this point, to publicly brand Poole as a liar and a vandal and to judge him worse than a "troll".

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 06, 1999.

My goodness. Such vehemence over a very mild defense.

I repeat, the man was trying to make a point. A lot of people here don't want that point made.

As for the objections to trolls, well, I don't mind handles. But an invalid email address, coupled with wild claims, should be enough to make anyone wonder about the veracity of the claims.

Now, don't hurt yourselves, but can we think of anyone here who meets those conditions, besides Stephen's experiment? Considering the number of 'sorry, the xolas.mit server can't deliver this message' emails I have plugging my box, I don't think it is that hard.

You want to go further? How about the sorry SOB who is signing me up for every blasted spam list in the country stepping forward and admitting it! I am real tired of wearing out the delete key while going through the Yahoo mailbox! Compared to that kind of crap, this prank was pretty minor.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Mr. Davis, I generally respect and enjoy your posts, which tend to be well reasoned and informative; but your defense of Mr. Poole on this issue is illogical, to say the least. Many nontechnical outsiders access many different sources of Y2K information, including this forum, in the quest for information; such people, and many technical people too, aren't likely to know specific part serial numbers, nor are they likely to expect that somebody would be so low as to engage in such a protracted, malicious hoax. I certainly agree with you about the danger of putting too much trust in anonymous posts (and I inveighed against them on Mr. Poole's original thread), whatever their "news" might be; nevertheless, the simple fact is that in this situation many people will be influenced, at least emotionally, by a well written, seemingly plausible anonymous post--especially since we know from other, reliable sources (e.g., Gary Beach, editor of "CIO Magazine") that there are indeed "worried insiders" in various companies. There is the additional factor that many people post on the Internet anonymously or under handles anyway, on all sorts of topics. Finally, it is undeniable that many companies have indeed told their employees, often for legal reasons, to clam up about Y2K work, whether the news be good or bad, so naturally any employee then wanting to "spill the beans" (again, with news good or bad) is, in fact, likely to post anonymously for fear of otherwise losing his job. As I noted in my post on Mr. Poole's thread, all this makes for a most unfortunate and despicable situation.

It's fortunate that I have the time to check many sources of info, including Cowles's forum, and so was able to learn within a day or two that the "Worried Utility Worker" post was bogus--for it did worry me, coming as it did after warnings from both NERC and TAVA that power companies should not rely upon type testing (though apparently at least some are; Cowles told me in an email that one of his clients was relying upon type testing for its electrical switchyard, where voltage is stepped up for transmission after leaving the generating plant).

Mr. Poole's post also unfortunately now casts doubt upon the "good news" posts of anonymous posters like "Dan the Power Man," "Cl," and "The Engineer" on Cowles's forum, who have been providing encouraging news about the relative lack of Y2K problems in T&D systems. Of course you might say that their news correlates with that of other, nonanonymous sources--but again, so did Mr. Poole's fictitious post about type testing.

Finally, please remember that not everyone who accesses the Internet in search of Y2K information has (or will take) the time to double check everything and explore every possible source. There are many "lurkers" on the TB2000 forum who will have seen the "Worried Utility Worker" post but not the subsequent revelations and explanations; some of these folks are now, no doubt, passing this damnable hoax on as fact to their friends and neighbors. If you and Mr. Poole find that acceptable, you folks have an unusual sense of ethics indeed.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 06, 1999.

P.S. I'll grant that Mr. Poole admitted his hoax within a couple of days, about the same time that serious suspicions were raised on Cowles's forum, including by Mr. Cowles himself, and that the matter was then promptly aired in the TB2000 forum. (As far as that goes, I think one or two people on the TB2000 forum raised eyebrows at the serial numbers given in Mr. Poole's original thread.) But that does not excuse the perpetration of the hoax in the first place. There are amusing, harmless hoaxes, which I enjoy (hey, I wrote a book for the University of Missouri Press on Mark Twain, after all); then there are unamusing, potentially dangerous hoaxes, which I condemn. Mr. Poole's hoax clearly falls in the latter category.

-- Don Florence (dflorence@zianet.com), July 06, 1999.

Paul,

My original words to you stand. That your defense of Poole was "mild" alters them not in the least.

Neither does your repetion that Poole was trying to make a point alter them. So, apparently, was Timothy McVeigh and a lot of people didn't want that point made either. You are essentially saying that the ends justified the means and although Poole's act and McVeigh's were at opposite extremes, neither act was justified by the means employed.

As quite accurately addressed by Don Florence, the EMail address issue does nothing to justify Poole's actions and even if your claim that the reader has a responsibility to discriminate between claims based on such addresses does not lie. Such discrimination may only reasonably be based on the claim itself, and that you perceived Poole's claims as "wild" is no guarantee that readers with a different knowledge set than yourself would do so. Again, as Don Florence has pointed out, many with little or no technical background look here for information.

While I sympathize with your plugged EMailbox, I would think it rather obvious that the state of affairs that you complain of (invalid EMail addresses) would argue for their use rather than against them as then your EMail box would remain clear of the offending notifications. Mine does!

And yes, I wish to go further with you. Again I sympathize, and join in your condemnation of whoever is impersonating you on the internet. That act is not defensible either. But to claim that because another commits a worse act that Poole should be allowed to "break the rules" is simply wrong. Your impersonater, no matter how vile the act that he commits, is no more relevant to Poole's act than the Los Angeles confidence man who impersonates a police officer in order to steal from an elderly widow.

I have personally given Poole the benefit of the doubt in the past, and concluded that he was young or stupid or perhaps both. It is clear now that he is also dishonest and a liar.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 06, 1999.

Jonathan Latimer,

If you actually believe that my words above are "ferocious" then you are in for a very rough ride as you clearly have a value system that does not handle the more violent aspects of the human experience well.

Although it would clearly be in your own intelligent self interest to learn to read better (a characteristic, BTW, that you share with the above named Poole), I will make an exception to my policy of not responding to fools and just this once, answer your misguided and inaccurate post.

For your edification, my previous words on this thread did not address the subject of trolls, but spoke first to Paul Davis' defense of Poole's actions and secondarily to Poole's actions themselves. For you to characterize my single use of the word "troll" as making a point speaks volumes about your own meager thought process.

Not only do you inaccurately describe my words to Paul as "ferocious", you suggest that I should apply them to every anonymous post on this forum. For your further edification, every post that I have made to this forum has been anonymous and even a cursory reading of this forum (which you apparently have not performed) will demonstrate no common element to anonymous postings. To carry out your suggestion then, would surely be a useless task, even if not apparent to an intellectual pauper such as yourself.

Now the reason that I have made an exception in your case is simply that you have made an ignorant allegation as to my position vis a vis the Y2K situation. For you to imagine that anything else that you had to say was worthy of reply would tax credulity.

In this thread , I stated my position quite clearly when I said, "Just so that you know where I'm coming from Robin, I do not consider myself a "polly", nor do I consider myself a "middle-of-the-roader", or a "doomer". I have endeavored to make plain that I see the potential for anything from a BITR to TEOTWAWKI in very large measure. The most accurate label that I know to describe that state is "searcher", or perhaps student.." That thread is but an example however, of the many times that I have done so in this forum. You are simply an ignorant and foolish entity who shares with Poole an unfortunate tendency to "shoot from the hip", with like result.

This forum, in spite of the "nonsense" (such as your most immediately past posting represents perfectly) is already very informative and useful. Your problem seems to be that it requires a mind capable of careful observation and valid reason to enjoy those benefits.

And finally, your catchy little tag line reveals much, of your knowledge of the technological underpinnings of western civilization. What it reveals is that you have very little, if any, of that knowledge. It also reveals an astounding lack of understanding of human behavior and human capability.

It is abundantly clear to those who have more than a smattering of an understanding of how it all works, technically, that a computer failure of the ubiquity of the Y2K problem could very well bring about the end of our civilization. Whether or not it will, remains to be seen, but to deny the potential is simply incorrect.

And finally, to assert that even, ". . .hordes of panicking people", are capable of bringing about such and ending is ludicrous. You would have to be extremely selective in the makeup of such "hordes" to even come close.

You quite apparently haven't a clue what the real vulnerabilities of our civilization actually are. You are worthy only of pity.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 06, 1999.

Now I know why Andy calls him Cesspool.

-- nothere nothere (notherethere@hotmail.com), July 06, 1999.

See...

Stephen M. Pooles apology here...

An Apology To Lane, Diane, and the World At Large

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 00135U

BTW, Hardliner, the De Bunker board...

http:// www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum= 931301303&P=No&TL=931301303

....proudly displays a link to Jonathan Latimer s site.

http://www.q-a.net/origi.html

That speaks... volumes.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 06, 1999.

Diane,

I just finished following and reading both of the links that you posted above. To be honest, I had the preconceived idea that I would be wasting my time, but I had a little and so I "followed the blue brick road".

Surprisingly, after reading the entire thread you referenced at DBK, and Latimer's ignorant pap, I didn't feel that I had wasted my time at all. I learned more than I ever wanted to know about Poole, "cpr" and Latimer and as a result, I can report that those guys are simply living somewhere else. All three have a serious disconnect with reality.

They are to be pitied rather than scorned, but I personally will not tolerate verbal abuse from them simply because they are ignorant nor would I recommend that anyone else do so. They are obviously quite limited in the amount of damage that they can do, except to themselves. For the umpteenth time, I have resolved to ignore these ignorant fools.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), July 07, 1999.

Hardliner,

Amazable, huh?

What a lesson in compassion they could teach. Or not.

It is an eye-opening experience to check them out. Thank goodness we can return here!

BTW, it would be easier to ignore them, if they didn't choose to keep "tagging" over here. Such is the way of romper rooms.

*Sigh*

It's still all about Y2K. Despite temporary distractions.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999.

I thought Decker was the only person who demanded public apologies...

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 07, 1999.

No, Andy Ray, I am one of the few who actually apologizes for poor behavior.

Regards,

-- Mr. Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), July 07, 1999.

Interesting how wrong some were. How are Hardliner and Diane?

-- LOL (LOL@haha.com), November 05, 2002.