The Bell Tolls Twelve
on 01-01-2000 and All is Well

By M. Theroux

Well, here we are, the day after Y2k. I trust everyone (those who weren't holed up in underground bunkers) had a happy New Year's celebration. So what happened? Well, actually, nothing at all – as we predicted for the last two years.

Is this statement an 'I told you so'? In a way it is, for all those who wrote us unpleasant emails telling us we didn't know what we were talking about, or that we didn't research our subject at all. It is for all those who told the public that all would be doom and gloom come 01-01-00, and sold them millions of dollars worth of "preparedness" products. Will any of these "doom & gloomers" be held accountable for inciting mass hysteria about Y2k? I doubt it, but they should be. They'll tell you they never said all would be chaos, and that they were merely relaying information or "entertaining". I suggest you go back and read or listen to their statements (if you can still find them – hundreds of websites have already disappeared) and then decide whether or not they didn't at least "heavily suggest" the coming perils of the Y2k bug, all the while getting fat off of selling products to their hysterical audience. They also might tell you that Y2k wasn't a problem after all because they brought attention to the potential trouble early – resulting in public awareness and the consequent "fixing" of the problem. I suggest, again, that you look over their statements and see that they continued to say until late in the year that all could not be fixed, and there would still be many problems. They in turn continued to push Y2k products up until the last few days...and will continue to do so...but with another, scarier story...probably involving the current Solar cycle peak. We won't mention any names for several reasons, but you know who they are, and so do we. No, they will never admit they were wrong because they'll claim they never made a stand in the first place.

Borderland Sciences did take a stand – one that we held fast to all the way through the last couple of years to the end – 01-01-2000. Most will not care that we were indeed correct about Y2k, and will continue to support the farcical performances of those "entertainers" who pressed the hysteria. None of those who were in a position to present our "Embedded Chip Challenge" to the public did so either. I'm sure it was because much of their doom hinged on the elusive embedded chip story – one that was an "unknown" to most of the lay community. Had they pressed the issue with our challenge, the public may have had more confidence in the utility industries' ability to deliver power and water, and that, of course, would have put a damper on sales of wind-up radios, flashlights, and storeable food. But, they ignored our challenge, and many thought the power would go out and water would stop running.

Our research was thorough, and in the end, we were correct.

This WAS a big deal folks, not some story of killing an alien with a stick in the woods, or a mysterious signal coming from EQ Pegasi. The Y2k bug as presented to the public by the grifters would have potentially affected everyone. Scaring the hell out of people is big business, and will continue to be as long as there are those who are willing to embrace the fear handed them. Global Warming, The Sun, and AIDS are still in the news and will be used by those less scrupulous to sell you products you probably don't need, and could cause harm to your financial well being and/or your health.

In closing this statement, I would like to reprint something from an article we published in March of last year:

So where are we to get credible information today? Are we simply to rely on our 'inner bell' to distinguish fact from fiction? No, what we really need to do today is to check out the facts for ourselves. Although many do not have the time for this, it is essential for getting to the truth of the matter – otherwise we are left bleating the same hokum as those 'reporters' and 'entertainers' on late night radio shows and in the tabloids.

Here is a brief outline one can use when trying to obtain clarity on any topic presented on the internet:
Things to look for:

1. Does the article, statement, or information provide active and accessible links to reference information? (If links are excluded, there is no fast way to verify the info, and it may as well be discarded)

2. If it does contain links, how do those links relate to what the article presents? Are they within the context of the information presented?

3. Does the article, statement, or information use one of the seven basic propaganda devices? (See: Propaganda Analysis Home Page http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/propaganda/contents.htm (In 1937, the Institute for Propaganda Analysis was created to educate the American public about the widespread nature of political propaganda. The IPA is best-known for identifying the seven basic propaganda devices: Name-Calling, Glittering Generality, Transfer, Testimonial, Plain Folks, Card Stacking, and Band Wagon. According to the authors of a recent book on propaganda, "these seven devices have been repeated so frequently in lectures, articles, and textbooks ever since that they have become virtually synonymous with the practice and analysis of propaganda in all of its aspects." - Combs and Nimmo, 1993) See: Institute for Propaganda Analysis

4. Does the article, statement, or information refer to an anonymous source? (These anonymous sources seem to be employed by certain reporters to pump up weak stories in the attempt to impress those who believe in the reporter's God-like integrity.)

5. Look at the rest of the website. Does the article, statement, or information follow a pattern towards a general agenda presented by the website?

6. What are they selling? Is the article, statement, or information presented designed to sell a product or service? Does it lead one to believe that one needs said product?

There are many more things one can do, but these should suffice and are quick to implement. The main thing to do is check out the associated links. If there are none, you may search for links related to that topic, for example, if you read an article on solar activity, do a search for that topic to see what those in the field have to say. It really doesn't take that long.

From all at Borderland Sciences – Many thanks to those who did support us.

To all: Have a Happy New Year.

...and be careful who you listen to.

<HOME>