Y2K doomsayers study the entrails -- Kissinger gave them what they wanted

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread



Like druids who studied cattle entrails, Y2K doomsayers are looking for the first signs of panic. Henry Kissinger gave them what they wanted.
March 23, 1999

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999



Do you prepare for potential predicaments?

-- Watchful (seethesea@msn.com), March 23, 1999.

Hoping for Hysteria, huh, Declan?

Studying cattle entrails?

Giving "us" what "we" want?

Is that really what you think, Declan? Have you no respect for anything? I'm not even going to give you the clickthrough...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 23, 1999.

(interesting name, by the way)
in the article, it states "Nobody stopped to check facts. Nobody asked why no US newspaper reported Kissinger's apparent conversion.

I personally sent an email to be directed to Ted Kopple to look into this statement/article. I tried to direct it to him, since he has an extensive background with the former Secretary of State.

There were two previous threads that dealt with the verification of this statement and its authenticity, dated some days ago upon the release of the London article. The authenticity or verification was questioned. Mr. Yourdon posted his own caution to folks to verify before accepting.

Our participation on this forum is to alleviate fear and dispose of unfounded "information", while preparing for our level of assessment of the situation.

So, there was no widespread acceptance of the statement with "glee" or anything of the sort. Just healthy debate while taking the unverified statement with a grain of salt.

Regards, Mr. Kennedy

***was interested in the statement too, and tried to locate any other source of it as well (to no avail)***

-- Mr. Kennedy (looking@facts.com), March 23, 1999.

Declan, I am so bleeping tired of this "doomsayer" label.

What we "doomsayers" are looking for is not the first signs of panic, but the first signs of enough popular concern to instigate popular preparation.

Why is that so f*(&^*&ng hard for you pollys to capish? Please tell me how the doombrood can propose any "meme" more simple than this:

If the shit hits the fan and supply chains are snapped, it's a


if people (particularly with children) are able to STAY AT HOME, WITH ALL NECESSARY SUPPLIES, UNTIL THINGS SETTLE DOWN.

Please tell me what on earth is wrong with this position. Encouraged to respond are Mutha, Vinne, Norm(Vinnie), Y2K Pro, and anybody else who thinks preparation is wrong-minded and wrong-headed.

-- Lisa (lisa@work.shee), March 23, 1999.

Declan, I read the article, but at the end "there was no there there." What's the real deal with Kissinger? Many people consider him an authoritative figure, for good reason.

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 23, 1999.

My, my, this does seem to describe many GIs on this ol' forum, does it not?. Hoping (praying?) for the end and endlessly prattling on about Internment camps, NWO fears, U.N. troops, solar flares and hysterical blather about hating Bill Clinton. And they wonder why there are so many "DGIs"?

Hoping for Hysteria By Declan McCullagh March 23, 1999

Watching for the first signs of Y2K panic has become an online spectator sport.

Like druids who butchered bulls and examined the entrails for portents, Y2K devotees -- fans is too tame a word -- spend hours a day scanning the Net and the wires for the first hint of spreading jitters.

The game has developed its own vocabulary, complete with unflattering descriptions of "the herd of sheeple" who might, someday, wake up and start stampeding. We suppose it's like being in a crowded theater with the exits mobbed -- except you'll survive just fine if that Martha Stewart survival gear you've been lusting for is out of stock.

There's a desperate and hungry eagerness to all of this. Many of the most ardent fans have spent months or years preparing for the worst, laying in that predictable stash of rice and beans to ward off starvation -- or, if Y2K is a non-event, years of grocery shopping. Not only do they predict Y2K calamity, but they're happily looking forward to it.

So it was with naked glee that Y2K buffs worldwide celebrated the apparent conversion of former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to their side. The cause for their celebration: A report in a London newspaper. "At a high-powered millennium meeting in Washington recently, delegates were stunned to hear Henry Kissinger announce that he intended to withdraw all his money from the bank as 2000 nears. Mr Foot's statement this week has fuelled fears that lesser mortals will follow the former United States Secretary of State's lead, precipitating a dangerous run on the banks," The Times of London reported on Saturday.

Loud was the rejoicing. "Kissinger becoming a doomster is quite an event!" one fellow chortled. "I wonder whether his mattresses will be large enough for him to hide all his money."

The conspiracy theories followed apace. "Sir Henry 'Golem' Kissinger's agit-prop statement in a Brit's newspaper indicate something sinister is afoot," mused another.

Veteran doom-and-gloomer Gary North couldn't pass up the chance to join the fun, serving up a tantalizing mix of glee with black-helicopter overtones. Kissinger "will soon issue a denial," North confidently predicted.

Nobody stopped to check facts. Nobody asked why no US newspaper reported Kissinger's apparent conversion. The Times didn't offer any details that would let its readers verify information about the "high-powered millennium meeting." Was Kissinger misquoted, or his remarks mischaracterized?

In all this fuss, there's one perfect bit of synchronicity. It was in a January 2, 1999 article in the Ventura County Star. The paper quoted Rev. Steve Davis, pastor of Monte Vista Presbyterian Church. He offered the reporter an impromptu lesson in global realpolitik and millennialism: "I've heard Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger identified as the Beast. That new and bizarre interpretation has no grounding in biblical text."

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), March 23, 1999.

Well, at least we know Declan is not Y2K Pro. Can you say copyright infringement suit?

-- Puddintame (dit@dot.com), March 23, 1999.

The paper quoted Rev. Steve Davis, pastor of Monte Vista Presbyterian Church. He offered the reporter an impromptu lesson in global realpolitik and millennialism: "I've heard Bill Clinton and Henry Kissinger identified as the Beast. That new and bizarre interpretation has no grounding in biblical text."

This quote has no grounding (or relevance) in responsible Y2K preparations either.

Just sensationalism, wouldn't you say?

Mr. Kennedy
***stating the obvious***

-- Mr. Kennedy (looking@facts.com), March 23, 1999.

Quite right. That's not fair use.

I'm mildly surprised by the hostile reaction. I would have thought y'all would have liked an article exploring this world.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.

But, Mr. Kennedy, it has much to do with Mr. Kissinger.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.

Declan - you've absolutely mis-characterized at least half of forum participants here, and you're surprised by the "hostile" reaction?

Methinks thou art gettin' the jitters.

You still a 1 on the scale?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.jeez), March 23, 1999.

As I've said in interviews before, I was much more scared -- very worried, in fact -- about Y2K a year ago than today.

Folks here seem to love half of our y2kculture.com articles and loathe the other half. Doesn't bother me. I write what I believe, not to win popularity contests.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.


Suggest your time could be better spent if you'd track down Kissinger and verify or repute his alleged statements in the London Times.

Think of the U.S. news scoop potential!

If "true" do you think Time Magazine would print it?

Bets anyone?

Check and verify, Declan.


-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 23, 1999.

True. The good reverend does mention MR. Kissinger. However, no one has heard a statement from Mr. Kissinger to clarify whether or not he is going to empty his bank accounts or whether or not he is "The Beast", so, it seems to be reasonable to leave him out of articles.

As for the article itself (yours), it describes a small portion of people who are preparing. They of course, tend to get the most press because they are most extreme (makes good stories). It would be rather boring to interview me, with my sensible, quiet, methodical approach to preparations for my mother, wife, grandmother, and 3 children. I'm far from hysterical, and most other well prepared and educated people are sensible too. Very boring news.

Mr. K
***knows a limited amount of the public wants to hear dry details, and articles go for the extremes***

-- Mr. Kennedy (looking@facts.com), March 23, 1999.


"Hoping for Hysteria" paints with much too broad a brush. I cannot and will not argue that there are not some among the GI crowd who are indeed "happily looking forward" to whatever calamities might befall us upon rollover. But to imply that all GIs - or even MOST of us- think that way is to do a grave disservice to those who seek to peer into the impossibly confused future in order to get some idea of what we can expect from this unprecedented event. I have grown tired of journalistic excesses which belittle the possible problems involved in y2k, perhaps to the serious disadvantage of those who might be dissuaded thereby from making reasonable efforts to prepare themselves if there are problems. I am equally tired of bureaucratic doublespeak, implying that there will be no problems and that those who make preparations are some new breed of lunatic on the one hand while making unprecedented efforts to mobilize potentially draconian governmental responses to any disruptions that arise on the other.

If all you people are so unutterably intelligent and well informed, why the hell don't you tell all us poor peons EXACTLY what will happen come rollover? Why all this toe-dancing and bet-hedging when the hard questions get asked? Why all the cheap shots and derision when difficult issues are not easily dismissed? Why is all the "good news" so full of disturbing tidbits?

Many of us are trying to solve a difficult puzzle with inadequate information from unreliable sources. We work without pay in a singularly unrewarding pursuit, and our families and friends depend on us to get this one right. Some of us have spent hundreds of hours and a good deal of money trying to reach accurate conclusions on this issue, because we think it's important that accurate conclusions be drawn. Not because we have some crackpot agenda, not because we desire tragedy, but because we want to avoid it if possible, if indeed tragedy is to be the likely outcome of y2k.

Notice I said IF. Because even at this late date, even in spite of a great deal of determined research and analysis, we STILL DON'T KNOW what rollover will bring. We have not found anyone we collectively consider a dependable source who professes to know for sure what will happen. There are indicators one way or another, some good and some bad, but few certainties. The staff of the Senate y2k committee complained about some of the same problems I've mentioned in preparing their recently-released report, and drew somewhat shaky conclusions as well. If that's the best they can do, with all the resources at their command, we refuse to feel bad for not being able to do any better.

The bottom line here is simple. Most of us here have decided that it seems wise to make reasonable precautions in case there are some problems associated with rollover. Those precautions will prove useful in the event of any number of other unrelated difficulties. We have burned no bridges, nor have we lost any of our native skepticism. I dare say the majority of GIs are the same, no matter how odd or vocal the minority might be. We have made the best decisions we can and are prepared to live with the results. I hope doubletalking bureaucrats and snide journalists can do as well.

-- (li'ldog@ontheporch.com), March 23, 1999.

Hey Declan are you still letting your girlfriend do all the prep at your house? Reliable sources say she has you two well set up for y2k.

-- Interesting Gossip (notelling@thistime.net), March 23, 1999.

'Lil dog on the porch: thanks. Excellent summary, perfect.

I'd give anything if the pollys would make any attempt to discern we- that-are-not-foaming-@-the-mouth from those who are. Right.....

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), March 23, 1999.

Yeah, we're moving to our cabin in West Virginia next Tuesday, kiddo. We've got a 12 KW diesel, 20 solar panels, three wells, and are a full tank of gas away from the rat-hordes of WashDC. We cashed in our 401(k)s last year and lost $20,000 as the stock market ran up to 9,900. But we don't care since we're hardcore survivalists. You'll be happy to know I've quit my job to become a dirt farmer. We've even got a team of mules; Al Gore has volunteered to stop by and help us hitch 'em up.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.

Exercise some restraint here

The above post doesn't seem like something Declan would post. Just MHO.

Mr. K

-- Mr. Kennedy (looking@the.post), March 23, 1999.


That was so well-stated, I just saved it in my "best-of" collection.

-- mabel (mabel_louise@yahoo.com), March 23, 1999.


This forum was once dominated by the darkest of the doombrooders. It now seems to be a little more moderate. I agree that you have painted with too broad a brush here, even though the doomers call me a polly.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 23, 1999.

Declan, I did not go back and reread ths post about Mr. Kissinger but from what I can remeber,very few of the posters beleived it. Several voiced concern as to its credability.

Instead of wasting time "gleefully" writing this piece on all the doom and gloomers, why not try and find out how the quote about Kissinger came to being. Sometimes where there is smoke there is fire. As a journalists, I would think you would be curious. You are a journalist, aren't you?

I emailed the London Times concerning this story but received no reply leaving me to question the paper and the writer.

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), March 23, 1999.

Declan, (you bunghole), were you being a druidic entrail-student when you wrote the Wired article "District of Calamity"? With headlines like that one would sware you were a bit of a y2k doomsayer.

-- humptydumpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 23, 1999.

yeah, I 2nd that, be awear declan ! :-)

-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), March 23, 1999.

Declan's not a "doomsayer" or a "polly" or even a "responsible journalist" for that matter. He's simply a huckster reading the prevailing winds and inflaming people in order to get eyeballs to his site's banners and to get people to read the publications that he writes for. He has no interest in "disseminating information" or "finding the balanced truth."

Just look at the response he's gotten to this thread, and how quickly it's happened. That's what he's trying to accomplish. Fanning the flames for personal and career gain...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 23, 1999.

Go li'l dog !!

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), March 23, 1999.

Yawn. When you don't have anything else to say, pound the table...

It is true that I am probably not a polly or a doomsayer. I like to think of myself as inhabitating that more moderate, middle-of-the-road (though not necessarily bump-in-the-road) area.

I remain skeptical of both polly and doomsaying claims. I call 'em like I see 'em -- when the DC gvt is in deep trouble, I'll say that. When you've got some of the conspiratorial Kissinger reactions, I'll say that too. Pretty straightforward.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.

Another ignorant and perjorative article. Do you have no shame at all? A truly lousy piece of work. You seem very complacent and smuggly self saticfied.

You represent 98% of the people in what you have written there. OK. you have taken your stand, but it is only fitting that you stand there and take your lumps when TSHTF. But weasels never stay in one place.

For those who have evaluated this problem and come to a different conclusion they will be warm, well fed and secure in any event.

As for you and those you represent .. ~poof~ ..

-- Duh! (DeClanLikesToSeeHisName@InPrint.ForAllToSee), March 23, 1999.

I thought declan was a SOMEBODY!

-- Linda A. (adahi@muhlon.com), March 23, 1999.

Declan's a typical grandiose delusional Irishman, here to enlighten us nitwits with his gaellic charm. We should all be terribly honored by his presence among us. Just ask him.

-- Tommy (13@Eccles.Street), March 23, 1999.

Because of asshole journalists like Declan I let my subscription o wired lapse this past year. I was a very avid fan of Wired through the years, starting with issue 1.1. But I became disillusioned by the "technology is God" slant the magazine portrayed. Articles like The Long Boom seemed really contrived to me. Then when they ignored y2k when the first signs of smoke appeared last year, that was the last straw. Good Riddance.

Declan will awake from his slumber in due time, along with all the other idiots that have been placated by the spoon-fed happy-face drivel the government and corporate handlers have been dishing out for them.

-- a (a@a.a), March 23, 1999.

Awake from slumber? I've been writing about Y2K for over a year. Hardly napping, like most reporters. This is hysterical hand-waving, folks, and should be dismissed as such.

Buying the government party line? I've done more than any other reporter I know to expose where the government is deceiving the public. Who else has reported what really happens inside those secret meetings?

Some of the messages here are perfectly reasonable. Others are just people mouthing off when they have nothing intelligent to say. You don't like articles poking fun at you occasionally? Grow up and get over it.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.

The most important point here is to remember that every time someone clicks on his site, it inflates Mr. McCullough's already rather oversized ego. Not to mention gives him support when he asks for advertising bucks.

Next, the London Times is not what it was. See the thread


where you can read it is no more reliable than the Enquirer. The poor old Times was bought by one, Rupert Murdoch, who was allegedly known at university as "Red Rupert."

Mr. McCullough, being the experienced journalist he professes to be, knows full well that the Times is little better than a tabloid.

What should not be forgotten or minimized is that Mr. McCullough was part and parcel of the large Y2K spread done by Time magazine, which played an enormous role in setting the stage for Y2K GIs to be looked upon as dangerous or hysterically funny fruitcakes, if not both. And do I remember correctly that Mr. McCullough very politely picked brains on this forum for his contribution to the Time farrago? There's a thread on that reportorial fiasco but I don't know under which heading it would be filed. Do we have a category for sewer gas?

For the future, may we encourage a more organized rotten-tomato-throwing contingent that can deal quickly with Mr. McCullough's regular attempts to sucker newbies to his site? I don't see why this person should profit from us any further.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 23, 1999.

Ol'Git gets it wrong. We run y2kculture.com as a hobby. Orders of magnitude more people read my articles on wired.com or in newspapers or magazines. you can visit the site or not; doesn't matter to me. We just have fun doing it.

Git is correct to say I contributed to the Time cover story. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Again, doesn't matter to me.

No, I didn't "pick brains" here for any contribution to that story. But heck, don't let facts stand in your way.

You wonder why journalists and reasonable people don't take you seriously? Why you're the butt of jokes? It's not just because of the regular "black helicopters spotted" threads that pop up here. It's because of incoherent ranters like this Git fellow.

To you reasonable folks: I salute you.

To everyone else: This is a waste of my time. I've got better things to do than fence with spittle-spewing wackos.

-- Declan McCullagh (declan@y2kculture.com), March 23, 1999.

Then why do you keep coming back here OVER AND OVER again, Declan? You come across as VERY arrogant. You know more than all the pollys or doomers put together, don't you Declan? That's why you keep coming here. So you can "enlighten" us all with your GREAT wisdom!

-- none (none@none.none), March 23, 1999.

Declan, my understanding is that "Old Git" is an English lady. And a usually very nice one. There you go again, characterizing people without information...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 23, 1999.

ThEN WHy diD YOu poST HERE jacKASS?????? cLicKS FoR DEcLaN MakE DeCLan MoNEY Is wHY!!!!! DIeTER HATes YOu!!!!! yOu aRE MoRE OF a tRoLL THaN DIEtER, IS ThaT NoT TRuE???? IDIoT BUNghoLe!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), March 23, 1999.

"I've done more than any journalist I know." Typical delusional thought-process. Delusional people inflate their importance to others, and have no insight into the fact that they are delusional. "You know why journal-ists don't pay attention to..." More deluded thinking: as if anyone CARES what you think, pal. Self-important fools are the PROBLEM, and certainly not part of any solution. Maybe mommy's impressed, but we're not.

-- scooga (coga@fra.net), March 23, 1999.

No, Declan's just bulletproof. From Y2K, everything. He's not at all afraid to mess with .gov when it comes to reporting; we owe him credit for that, at least.

He just never explains why Y2K is no big deal to him anymore. He thinks we should quit worrying about it because HE quit worrying about it.

The insane irony is he thinks he's bulletproof in DeeCee?????

-- Lisa (lisa@give.up), March 23, 1999.

Thanks, ps, don't know about "lady," but I'm of the female persuasion, yes. Yet another wrong assumption on Mr. M's part. On the whole, quite a nice overreaction, wasn't it? So much for objective journalism and its lack of preconceived notions. "Spittle-spewing wacko," eh? "Incoherent ranter," huh? Sorry, for the delay, I'm chuckling here. Actually, I speak rather slowly and enunciate carefully so that my accent doesn't overpower my words. Amazing how much Mr. M understood of my incoherent ranting, isn't it? And, being of stiff upper lip stock, I don't spit, not even when there are a lot of sibilants, as in "spittle-spewing." On the whole, I'd describe myself as a plump, middle-aged woman, preppie dresser, and heavily-silvered hair (natural).

Oh, and we don't need anyone to laugh at us, do we? We can and do laugh at ourselves often and well.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 23, 1999.

People are enraged with Declan because of the nonchalant, "moderate", "no biggy" attitude in the face of a potentially disaterous problem that even he has give credence to. Unfornunately, the 8-10 effect will probably happen because of it. As GIs we ask, "How can a "moderate" outlook, whatever that is, be the result of this O.J Simpson style evidence?" The Y2K clueless in America are "our" supplier chain. We are simply pleading with these to take out insurance. Some insurance, any insurance! WE NEED YOU. YOU NEED US. Why take the any chances on this? There may not be a return to our present lifestyles that we cherish. Denial runs so deep among our fellow citizens that it's scaring us into this staunch position of alarm. Yes, we are sounding the alarm. We have little time to take action...


-- PJC (paulchri@msn.com), March 23, 1999.

LOL, Old Git!

I'm having this image of you, as you describe yourself, spitting tobacco juice over the back fence while shooting at the black helicopters flying overhead! Ah, that's beautiful...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), March 23, 1999.

Ahhhh. journalassts.... Tis sad that they are the only connection that we really have to the liars in government. What a team...

-- karen (karen@karen.com), March 23, 1999.

Declan, you said:

"I've got better things to do than fence with spittle-spewing wackos. "

Gee, I haven't seen a post from Paul Milne in a while! :-)

-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@ultranet.com), March 23, 1999.

The last person I'd trust to advise about anything. This is the same back-stabing one-world kraut PRICK that stated that if the fear was great enough, people would gladly give up freedoms for security. He sold out our men rotting in Laos and Cambodia and those transported to russia for intel purposes. This fat-ass eletist and all like him deserve a life loading pigshit for farm spreaders. Please, oh please Henery, lead the squad to take my freedom, or paraphrasing William Wallace, GO HOME, TELL YOUR COMRADES, AMERICA IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- doesn't matter (remember@POW.com), March 23, 1999.

...just in case someone was wondering what a spittle-spewing wacko sounded like

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 23, 1999.

Goodness, ps, perish the thought! I'm far too well bred to spit my tobacco juice over the back fence. No, it goes into a Royal Doulton teacup. Camouflage pattern, of course, matches the afternoon dress so the black helos can't spot me.

By the way, in the UK we call camo outfits "can't-see-me suits". Thought you'd like that.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), March 23, 1999.

-- Declan McCullagh commented:

"Folks here seem to love half of our y2kculture.com articles and loathe the other half. Doesn't bother me. I write what I believe, not to win popularity contests."

Declan, all folks here want are facts. Believe it or not they can make up their own minds.SPIN can't WIN here.


-- Ray (ray@totacc.com), March 23, 1999.

"Declan, all folks here want are facts. "

Who said this forum lacked a comedic touch?

-- Y2K Pro (2@641.com), March 23, 1999.

Old Git,

LOL ... and chuckling!

My grandmother was a very British Lady, living in Victoria, British Columbia. Loads of fine bone china teacups, silver, white linen, etc. Trying to imagine her in a cammo dress and deciding which Gucci bag matched.

Actually, she was pretty cool. Possibly she might have expectorated in a flowered teacup, if no one else was in the room. Then wiped it clean with a lace-edged hankie, or serviette. (Not, a napkin ... thats improper, and might cause diaper rash).


(P.S. Declan, still interested in Kissingers response).

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), March 23, 1999.

This isn't a post to Declan, but to the Yourdon regulars.

Some of you know that I have scorched him in the past repeatedly: I'm not surprised one bit by the article or his posts. What surprised me was why regulars I respect here have paid him any heed since the Time mag "special" came out. Hope you finally have the picture.

Again, you regulars know I respect folks with integrity, whether Y2K/1 or Y2K/10ers. Declan has zero integrity.

Ignoring Declan falls into the same category as ignoring trolls. Do it and, if we're lucky, he'll go away. Unfortunately, being without integrity, he probably won't.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 23, 1999.

Big Dog's handy instant definition:

Integrity: Agreeing with ME!

Lack of Integrity: seeing reality.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 23, 1999.

Hey Declan, I'm one of the Yourdonite "wackos" and I have a question:

Is your girlfriend that is doing your y2k preps the same girlfriend that you beat the piss out of a couple of years ago?

(For you newbies, the police report was posted on c.s.y2k a few months ago)

Just wondering asshole.

-- wacko (declan@is.the.real.wacko), March 23, 1999.

Is it just me, or does anyone else here think that Flint and Declan were seperated at birth?

-- a (a@a.a), March 23, 1999.

Hey Flint, I think your nickname should be Flit, you arrogant Mother Fucker.

-- Asshole Spotter (ihate@flit.com), March 23, 1999.

Flint --- "Integrity" is a simple concept, a truth, really. Yes, Declan does lack integrity. Sorry, that isn't a matter of "gee, what is going to happen with Y2K? Maybe this, maybe that ...". It is a simple matter of matching the dictionary definition against Declan's long-term actions.

And now, for the second time (your despicable post about GIs was the first), you seem to be revealing your true character on this forum.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), March 23, 1999.

Divide and conquer...

-- Gen. Sherman (march@tothe.sea), March 23, 1999.

Hey "Asshole Spotter".... fuck you very much.

-- Spotter Stomper (----@sheesh.com), March 23, 1999.

Old Git, you sound foxy! Wanna swap happy snaps? ;-} (LOL at self.)

Flint, you're a turd.

Wacko, the gloves are off in this thread so that was a nice one.

-- humpty (no.6@thevillage.com), March 24, 1999.

and the same goes for you, humpty-boy

-- Stomper (----@sheesh.com), March 24, 1999.

Hmm...it seems I was mistaken. Maybe that brush wasn't too broad after all.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 24, 1999.

"Is your girlfriend that is doing your y2k preps the same girlfriend that you beat the piss out of a couple of years ago?"

Records of Declan McCullagh's arrest for domestic violence

"Officer's Haven and Hammond-Schrock answered a domestic call at the above address. We met R.P. Yang and Witness Gardy on the front porch. They said they heard several booms and then a bang which they felt was someone falling down steps. When they went upstairs to investigate they heard a female say "Let me go you're choking me." We went to the front door and was let in by the victim Donna Riley. Riley said her boyfriend, Declan McCullagh was angry with her for not meeting him when she said she would. After arguing for some time victim said she was leaving and taking her things with her. McCullagh said no. Riley went upstairs and got her things. They argued some more and while at the top of the stairs, McCullagh pushed Riley down the stairs. Riley said she started screaming and McCullagh came from behind her while she was still on the ground and covered her mouth to stop her screaming. That is when Yang and Gardy came to the door. We observed scratches to both of Riley's arms."


-- Exposer (Sleuth@R.us.com), March 24, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ