January 1st or Bustgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The crowd over in comp.software.year-2000 is now starting to back off from 1 January 2000 as the pivotal date! In just the past week I have seen 1 June 2000, 1 April 2000 and mid-January as dates by which we will know if Y2k is severe. However in years past, the idea was that each Y2k fault would be minor but it was the fact that so many faults would occur in a very short period of time that would cause a feedback effect magnifying the disruption.
If the effects are smeared over several months, then the feedback will not occur and the overall effects will be mitigated. For example: if all supermarkets close 1 January till 15 January, that is very different from half the supermarkets closed from 1 Jan to 15 Jan and the other half from 16 Jan to 30 Jan (to give a favorite doomer example).
So what is the current analysis: Big Bang on the first, or Steady State for months?
-- Bradley K. Sherman (email@example.com), October 11, 1999
If it's a steady slide, we'll wear rags, but survive. If it's the Big Bang, duck and cover.
-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 11, 1999.
Why, are you writing a book, too?
-- lisa (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
I vote for world economy crash...
-- Cory Hill (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
My answer: How long does it take to use up petroleum resources which are either in transit from Mexico, South America and the Middle East or in private storage? Take that number of days out from January 1 and that would be my estimation of when you'll get a pretty good idea of <,= or > ABITR.
-- Puddintame (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
Beeks shows up at TB2K! Beware, folks.
Spectacular persistent fireworks, i.e. explosive failures worldwide beginning New Year's Evil, and lasting at least 3 months, with accumulative economic depression lasting years.
-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
If it isn't the CSY2K resident troll, BKS. Glad to see you stop by for some abuse here for a change.
Since you ask, IMHO, trouble will be apparent FAR before January 1st. The media will grab the story and really run with it the last few weeks of December. The trouble will not be with systems, though, it will be with people; people who have not prepared or who have ignored the possbility of real problems all this time. Also, people that will take advantage of a perceived vulnerability in our electronic society and seize the opportunity for cyber- eco- and other types of terrorism on or slightly before the magic date. IOW, a bell curve of effects, centered on Jan 1st.
Although I am well aware that you will cut and save our replies for possible smirking in the future, I thought I would offer my opinion. We'll compare notes January 2nd.
BTW, here's another one: Dow at 7000 well before December, Gold at $500 per oz.
-- ariZONEa (CSY2K@not.here), October 11, 1999.
I don't think it needs to be an either/or thing. (and I never have thought so.) Sure, Jan.1 is likely to see the highest volume of errors, but as you say, there is the possibility that "each Y2k fault would be minor but it was the fact that so many faults would occur in a very short period of time that would cause a feedback effect magnifying the disruption." I suppose the key is WHERE those minor errors occur, whether they push the game over button, or if they turn the game over dimmer switch.
Personally, I think the best thing is to be prepared (physically and psychologically) for the possibility of immediate disruptions, cascading disruptions and/or minor disruptions. The rest is academic. There will be no "winners" in this debate.
-- pshannon (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
Just because most of the problems actually occur on or around Jan. 1, doesn't mean the effects will be readily apparent on that date. It's basic chaos theory stuff. Changes amplify as they move through the system. Minor errors will be passed on and in turn corrupt other systems in a geometric progression. The big question will be if anyone catches what's going on, before it has a chance to build into something major.
Granted having the problem spread out mitigates the impact, somewhat, but there's a lot of territory between
NO problem<------->everybody's dead
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), October 11, 1999.
==========DON'T FEED THE TROLLS==========
-- bks=brad koskinen sherman (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
I think Jan 1 will be the day that the pumps(JIT services) stop pumping cool water into the Reactor(society). The plant engineers(Govt?)will go "Oh Sh#t! we gotta get this fixed FAST!" The alarms will go off and they will tell the public "everything is under control but just in case..."
Then it is really a wait and see,the real emergency will start shortly after it is obvious that there is no more water in the reactor...
-- matt (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
For more on bks (who makes Flint look like a doomer), see this earlier thread:
Sherman tries to smear Yourdon: you have to see it to believe it
-- (bks@troll #1.net), October 11, 1999.
'The media will grab the story and really run with it the last few weeks of December. The trouble will not be with systems, though, it will be with people; people who have not prepared or who have ignored the possbility of real problems all this time. Also, people that will take advantage of a perceived vulnerability in our electronic society and seize the opportunity for cyber- eco- and other types of terrorism on or slightly before the magic date. IOW, a bell curve of effects, centered on Jan 1st'
I disagree with much of this. One, the media won't grab and run with anything other than the party line: they have already proven this to be true.
People can starve to death in this country (and do every day) without a peep out of the media ....
Cyber- eco- terroism.....now that's a catch all which now includes squirrels and will be used to cover any 'glitch' that is noticable by large numbers of the population.
I am betting we will not know the extent of problems (other than local obvious in our face events)...and that we will never know the cause of any problems that arise.
We can slip into a depression and no one will ever mention Y2K real time computer glitches as being a large part of the cause....maybe fifty years later someone will do an historical review.
-- Shelia (Shelia@active-stream.com), October 11, 1999.
==========DON'T FEED THE TROLLS==========
-- bks = brad koskinen sherman (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
bks, I think you'll find that, while there are enough devolutionistas in TB2000 to provide leaven for the bread, the more popular position has gravitated away from mass extinction scenarios and more firmly toward "mere" economic depression with extreme social stress as the centrist position. As I understand it, a year ago this stance would get one branded as a raging pollyanna in csy2k.
Of course, back then the Joanne Effect was postulated to be sufficient alone to cause the kind of economic chaos now assigned to Y2K rollover. I noticed that the October 1 rollover to the start of the US Government Fiscal Year 2000 was not as eagerly anticipated as were the April 1 and July 1 FY rollovers. The JAE ain't what it used to be.
My own personal outlook is for Y2K to degrade the USA and global economy in serious ways, triggering a worldwide recession at the least (a year in which global production recedes 3%-5%) and quite possibly starting a wave of debt defaults that could bring on a global depression (widespread bank failures, unemployment above 12% in the USA, US GDP down by over 7% for the year with worse to come). The instability is clearly there, with or without Y2K.
If, through Valentine's Day, the average price of gas stays below $2 and the S&P 500 doesn't retreat more than 15% from today's level, I will be *extremely* happy with that result.
-- Brian McLaughlin (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
Here's the "current analysis" Brad - 11 Oct 1999 - is that current enough?
Infoliant Corporation on Y2K: We Are Moving in the Wrong Direction; Highest-Ever Percentage of `Negative' Changes Recorded
PITTSBURGH, Oct. 11 /PRNewswire/ -- As a striking follow up to the huge spike in Y2K compliance status changes recorded in August, Infoliant Corporation announced today that two-thirds (66%) of the status changes tracked by the Year 2000 Network Advisor(TM) knowledgebase in September were "negative."
Do you need your reading glasses, or should we jump start your noggin first?
-- a (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
Bradley- why don't you make up some bumper stickers?
you could make a killing.
"January 1st or BUST!"
thats great. I'd buy one.
I think every PR dept in every Fortune 500 company would buy them too!
They need something to inspire the troops.
don't forget to trademark it!
-- plonk! (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
This is merely one of Sherman's typical, tiresome, and of course, infamous, completely unsubstantiated fabrications.
-- Ron Schwarz (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
On January 1 I will reflect that 1999 was the most prosperous year in my life. I will attain Millionaire status. When all hell is breaking loose I will be living comfortable in my Self Sufficiant Compound With a million dollars in Gold and Silver and related gold stocks. Why? Because I was prudent in my preparations for this great catastrophy. I had total self-sufficiancy by January 1,1999. I then proceded to the financial aspects of Y2K. I purchased Gold Calls that are worth over $100 K right now and I have 60 dow puts which will be worth $200 K or more by December. Also purchased Gold stocks that have appreciated on average 40% and took possesion of gold and silver buillion.
There is still time, although not much time for you to take advantage of the Dow market crash and the Gold explosion that has already begun. Be prudent or pay for it next year!!
-- No spam (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
BTW Brad, I did a poll last spring and of around 100 forum regulars the average expected severity was a depression (48%). Around 20% voted for recession, 20% for a "Milne", about 3% for Bump and 3% for Infomagic.
So, no need to paint us with such a broad brush.
-- a (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
???? What the hell do you think this is, some kind of frigging CONTEST???? Moron. Try reading and understanding the following:
If the electricity goes off and stays off on Jan 1, 2000, then yeah, I guess you could say it will start with a big bang. If its more a case of an economic meltdown due to foreign import/export problems, and companies going bankrupt, it may take a fiscal quarter, since these things do take time to digest.
Now, does that fully answer your stupid question? (Is the bear Catholic? Does the Pope shit in the woods?)
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]
Government's top Y2K expert predicts failures for weeks, months
July 30, 1999
Web posted at: 12:06 PM EDT (1606 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Don't expect the Year 2000 technology problem to disappear after Jan. 1. President Clinton's top Y2K expert said failures could extend well beyond New Year's Day.
Although John Koskinen predicts there will be a national "sigh of relief" in the early hours of Jan. 1, he also anticipates scattered electronic failures over the first days, weeks and even months of the new year.
Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion, said in an interview Thursday with The Associated Press that some failures may not become obvious until the end of January, the first time after the date rollover that consumers review their monthly bank statements, credit-card bills and other financial paperwork.
"It won't evaporate until after that," Koskinen said. "Clearly, this is more than a January 1 problem." But he also slightly hedged his predictions: "None of us are really going to know until after January 1."
Unless repaired, some computers originally programmed to recognize only the last two digits of a year will not work properly beginning in 2000, when those machines will assume it is 1900.
Some computer systems may shut down quickly with obvious failures, and others may gradually experience subtle problems or degraded performance that may take weeks to notice.
"The more difficult problem will be where the system looks like it's doing it correctly but it's doing it all wrong," Koskinen said.
Some failures won't be recognized until the work week starts Monday, Jan. 3, as employees return to their offices and turn on their computers for the first time.
Repaired computers also will need to recognize 2000 as a leap year, even though most years ending in "00" don't need to adjust for Feb. 29, he said.
A new $40 million Information Coordination Center being organized down the street from the White House will operate until March, sharing information about failures with states, federal agencies, corporations and foreign governments.
Koskinen urged people to prepare for possible trouble as they might for a winter storm or a hurricane: Buy flashlights and batteries, keep enough cash, food and water for several days and make copies of financial and medical records.
But he also cautioned against stockpiling supplies, which could lead to local shortages, or draining bank accounts, which could strain the nation's financial system.
"If we get a couple hundred million Americans doing anything differently, we're going to create economic problems," he said.
An AP poll this month found most Americans don't expect major problems, but nearly a third plan to stock up on food, water and other supplies. About one-quarter of Americans planned to withdraw cash in case of trouble.
Koskinen predicted the most widespread problems will occur in developing nations that were slow to begin repair work. He named certain regions that recently suffered financial problems, including Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Russia. But he acknowledged that parts of Africa, Central America, South America and the Caribbean also were likely to suffer.
"Clearly, some of the developing countries of the world are going to have some difficulties," he said, adding that only 25 to 30 of the world's nations were well prepared. "Many more countries are going to have problems than not."
The State Department will begin issuing travel advisories in September for U.S. citizens about which countries to avoid.
Koskinen also disclosed that the government will consider evacuating American citizens from countries with widespread failures. He said each U.S. ambassador will make that decision.
-- Linkmeister (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
Do you like to needlepoint?
-- flora (***@__._), October 11, 1999.
The Committee is greatly concerned about the international Y2K picture. Several countries of strategic and economic importance to the U.S. are severely behind in Y2K remediation efforts. Regions of the world of most concern to the Committee are Eastern Europe, Africa, and parts of Asia and South America. When considering strategic and economic factors, and the status of Y2K remediation efforts within specific countries, the Committee's greatest concerns lie with China, Russia, Italy and several of the countries from which the U.S. imports oil.
Severe long- and short-term disruptions to supply chains are likely to occur. Such disruptions may cause a low-to-moderate downturn in the economy, particularly in those industries that depend on foreign suppliers.
-- Linkmeister (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
Do you mudwrestle?
-- (@ .), October 11, 1999.
My "current analysis" is that there will be the Big Bang before the first and the rest of the time just keeps getting worse.
-- Paula (Chowbabe@pacbell.net), October 11, 1999.
BKS is no troll. Knock it off with the name-calling.
-- the Indigenous People of Bora Bora (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
Paula: Do you like to mudwrestle?
-- King of Spain (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 11, 1999.
Okay, fair question. Here is my answer and what it is based on. (A hint before I go further, in case you don't want to read this, in my humble opinion, infomagic is an incurable optimist).
A meltdown, beginning at midnight on Dec. 31, 1999 and becoming progressively worse, (to paraphrase the reactor scenario someone used above, we have no water in the reactor, and instead of dropping the control rods, we add more nuclear fuel).
I base this on the following: 1 I work for a company that I believe was one of the first to understand the potential impact of Y2K. The Y2k project there was started in late 1994.
2 We have assessed, remediated, tested, reassessed, re-remediated and retested, upgraded hardware, upgraded operating systems, upgraded purchased software, gone through release cycles to obtain congruence with the above upgrades, re-upgraded all of the above, reassessed based on the outcome, re-remediated based on the outcome, retested.
3 As of two weeks ago, it was determined that the LATEST round of upgrades and remediation fell short because the upgraded Y2K compliant hardware wasn't, the upgraded Y2K compliant operating system wasn't, the upgraded Y2K compliant tools weren't, and consequently, our latest release wasn't.
4 At this point, there is not enough time to issue a new release, even assuming we could find compliant versions of the above. The only one that has issued a 'compliant' version is the operating system, and it has issues with some system calls, which we are dependent on, that haven't been fixed, even though they were found in the initial beta.
5 As of two weeks ago, we were informed that 'volunteers' would be required to be on-site the evening of Dec. 31, and that if there were not enough volunteers, or the volunteers were not of sufficient skill levels, that individuals would be 'volunteered'. I personally was told that I could 'volunteer' (and the incentives were little short of AWESOME for this company), or I would be 'volunteered', with a choice of showing up, or being terminated, regardless of outcome.
6 There is no current mandate to attempt to fix the problems that are KNOWN to be inherent in the current release.
7 I have been informed that the 'unofficial, completely internal' official policy is now 'Fix-on-Failure', which ought to be easy, since all I would have to do is somehow make the hardware, operating system, software, and tools compliant overnight.
If what has to be one of the earliest starting companies, without particularly high exposure, and not nearly the code base of some of the larger organizations is in this kind of shape, what do you think all of the 'happy face' organizations out there are like. (Bearing in mind that the organization I am with has an 'official' happy face policy.)??
My guess is that we are looking at an unmitigated disaster. When, note that I don't say if, remember, we have gone through 3 or 4 rounds of testing on this stuff, and they FAILED, so when things go wrong, I have absolutely no idea what it is that I am supposed to do about it. When I put this question to management, I got a blank stare in the finest tradition of the 'pointy-haired boss', and was told, "Oh, you'll think of something." (A direct quote.) (Also totally unfounded optimism.)
All I can say is that if there is anyone out there who can shed a ray of light on this situation, I've been looking for it for a couple of years now and haven't found it.
-- just another (email@example.com), October 11, 1999.
Interesting to see one of the "enemy generals" posting here (grin).
I think it's going to be both.
1) One area where I agree with Gartner, the embedded problem will hit on the 1st.
2) My opinion, the virus problem, while not really Y2K, will hit PCs big time on the 1st.
3) Many "business system" problems, both mainframe and PC, will hit on the 1st.
4) Many other problems will not be obvious on the 1st. They will show up at month-end, or quarter-end.
Again, my opinion, the 1st will be a "big day" but problems will continue to accumulate for many months.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1999.
There is no doubt about it. Jan 1, 2000 is and always has been the "BIG ENCHALADA".. Failures will outstrip the availability of IT guys to deal with the problems on Jan 03, and will show up in the media taking bigger precedence with each week. Best of Luck
-- Slammer (email@example.com), October 12, 1999.
You predict disaster based on your story of a Y2K remediation project which, despite an early start and strong effort, has not yet reached "compliance". Questions:
"As of two weeks ago, it was determined that the LATEST round of upgrades and remediation fell short because the upgraded Y2K compliant hardware wasn't, the upgraded Y2K compliant operating system wasn't, the upgraded Y2K compliant tools weren't, and consequently, our latest release wasn't" "My guess is that we are looking at an unmitigated disaster. When, note that I don't say if, remember, we have gone through 3 or 4 rounds of testing on this stuff, and they FAILED"
--- You say your software is not "compliant" and has "FAILED" testing. What form do these failures take? Does it not install correctly, or does it just sit there doing nothing? Every input kicks out as an error? The system shuts down unexpectedly every five minutes? If so, how and why did your company even bother with a "latest release"?
Or is it more of deal where an occasional input doesn't process correctly, or at all? If so, what percentage of inputs are bombing? If more than a few percent, why do a new release that wouldn't pass a basic merchantability test?
"As of two weeks ago, we were informed that 'volunteers' would be required to be on-site the evening of Dec. 31, and that if there were not enough volunteers, or the volunteers were not of sufficient skill levels, that individuals would be 'volunteered'. I personally was told that I could 'volunteer' (and the incentives were little short of AWESOME for this company), or I would be 'volunteered', with a choice of showing up, or being terminated, regardless of outcome."
OK, here's my little story. My company officially finished its remediation effort in September 1998. A three month IV&V finished in August 1999 which found two problems which have been fixed. Our customer is in the process of passing the code through yet another Y2K tool which has, as of yet, found nothing new.
And yet our software has been frozen, and we have been "volunteered" to be here 24 hours a day for the entire New Year's weekend. I'm personally on the hook for the graveyard shift Saturday and Sunday nights. What does this mean? It means a) we still expect a few problems, and b) we want to look good to our customers. Nothing more than that.
-- RC (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1999.
"just another (email@example.com)" is just another BULLSHIT ARTIST!
Name names, blow the whistle or GO BLOW YOURSELF! Does your company do anything that could cause public harm if they "go down"? If yes then you are a gutless worm for not squeeling like a stuck pig. If all you do is make beany babies, then who gives a fuck if you go out of business?
ENOUGH WITH THE BULLSHIT FEARMONGERS!
EVERY SINGLE POSTER TO THIS FORUM SHOULD DEMAND PROOF OF STATEMENTS LIKE THIS. THE SYSOPS SHOULD VERIFY THIS PERSON AND FIND OUT IF THIS IS TRUE. IF NOT, THE BULLSHIT SHOULD BE PULLED DOWN, AND EXPOSED AS SUCH! WAY TOO MANY JERKOFFS ARE GETTING AWAY WITH THIS SHIT. YOU LET ADAMS GET AWAY WITH IT. YOU LET NORTH GET AWAY WITH IT. YOU LET YOURDON GET AWAY WITH IT. YOU LET LORD GET AWAY WITH IT.
TIME FOR THE FREE FLOW OF BULLSHIT FEAR PROPAGANDA TO STOP!
(you man enough for this, Chuck?)
-- Shit Shoveler (get out of the way, FUD-mongers...you're next!) (BSdetector@is.SCREAMING), October 12, 1999.
Gee "Just another engineer"
I think you struck a nerve. Okay BS detector, I'll absolutely verify everything and live up to your stupid standards the minute Koskinen, the power industry, the government et al can do the same with their happy-faced bullshit. You can no more prove that nothing will happen any more than I can prove it will, so who the hell do you think you are demanding such verification in such loud tones?
Screw you. Your tone and attitude speak volumes about the waning confidence of the Pollys in their positions.
-- ariZONEa (BSdetector@screw.you), October 12, 1999.
Why don't you show us some verifyable GOOD news? Put up or shut up.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 12, 1999.
Well, there BS detector. Getting a little testy are we?
I don't put my name here, or post the company as I would like to keep my job, (until there isn't one to keep).
The company has posted a whole lot of 'good news' stuff, much of it for purposes of preempting potential litigation.
It is a Fortune 500. And no, we don't make Beanie Babies (TM). I hope to God nobody gets killed from our stuff, but there isn't much I can do about it either. The 'lone voice crying in the wilderness' problem. When managements response to the question 'What do you expect me to do about it?' is 'Pass a miracle.', with a straight face, I have no fall back position other than to make sure I have a bug-out bag in the car, in case being on highways is contraindicated.
Good on you! Glad to hear that somebody is doing well. The product I am responsible for is an SCM system. Problem we have is that the bulk of the servers are non-compliant, and this is a problem that shows up in testing of the hardware. (Wasn't involved in the hardware specific tests the IT guys did, just got the results in general format, (Hey man, we're screwed, the hardware isn't compliant.). There are some compliant servers, just not enough to do anything useful with. (I've got between 800 and 2000 users on the system, and one build machine ain't gonna do it. Particularly not with every department having it's senior folks in there to catch problems on the fly, rebuild, and remote install.) The OS isn't compliant, in that we get random spurious date/time stamps. (Which just plays the devil with version control, since the program looks at a version with a larger version number, an older date, and proceeds to have a nervous breakdown.) The results are somewhat random as to how it reacts. The vendor package isn't compliant, it reacts randomly to the spurious date/time stamp - at-odds version stamp problem and builds come back with bizarre errors.
I would think it obvious that the folks who are fixing the target code may have a little bit of a problem with this situation. I know *I* would. (And do, I use this thing too.) And it is known that they have problems in the field which will need to be fixed on the fly. And, as things stand now, this just isn't going to happen. Solution? You tell me.
As to what it means that we are 'volunteered', when the question is put to the boss 'What exactly am I supposed to do when the stuff which craps out in testing now, craps out New Years Eve' and the response is 'Pass a miracle.', I think it means that we are in deep doodoo.
-- just another (email@example.com), October 12, 1999.
Responses/followup questions for just another...
"The company has posted a whole lot of 'good news' stuff, much of it for purposes of preempting potential litigation."
I would contend (and have done so in the past) that the company which sends out nothing but 'good news', and then can't deliver, is the one who's gonna get sued. Corporate lawyers are, if anything, going to suppress good news unless they're pretty darn sure they can back it up.
--- "Good on you! Glad to hear that somebody is doing well. The product I am responsible for is an SCM system. Problem we have is that the bulk of the servers are non-compliant, and this is a problem that shows up in testing of the hardware...."
Isn't the easy solution to buy more of the compliant servers? The savings in man-hours cost would at least cover part of the expense.
"Wasn't involved in the hardware specific tests the IT guys did, just got the results in general format, (Hey man, we're screwed, the hardware isn't compliant... "
Well, again, one of my points is there's a huge distance between "the hardware isn't compliant" and "we're screwed".
"There are some compliant servers, just not enough to do anything useful with. (I've got between 800 and 2000 users on the system, and one build machine ain't gonna do it. Particularly not with every department having it's senior folks in there to catch problems on the fly, rebuild, and remote install.) The OS isn't compliant, in that we get random spurious date/time stamps. (Which just plays the devil with version control, since the program looks at a version with a larger version number, an older date, and proceeds to have a nervous breakdown.) The results are somewhat random as to how it reacts. The vendor package isn't compliant, it reacts randomly to the spurious date/time stamp - at-odds version stamp problem and builds come back with bizarre errors."
Now I'm confused. You're talking about build problems. It's still 1999. Either your development system is not Y1.999K compliant, or your entire development shop is running in post-2000 mode, which I've never heard of (though it is an interesting idea).
And BTW, computers don't do anything at random. They're not very good at it. Errors are sometimes obscure and hard to track down, but never random.
-- RC (firstname.lastname@example.org), October 13, 1999.
As I thought "just anotherBULLSHIT ARTIST" you are a GUTLESS, SPINELESS, SNIVELING WORM! YOU THINK OF YOURSELF FIRST AND EVERYBODY ELSE BE DAMNED!
I SAY YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!
Put up or shut up, LOSER! you can't put up can you? because you are a LYING FUCKING WEASEL, probably shilling for a food vender that needs to dump supplies. Trying to keep the fear going are we? BULLSHIT TO YOU!
this is your cue, Stan ****14 day preparationH**** to post your shill stuff.
-- Shit Shoveler (watch out fear mongers) (BS@detector.found.you.out), October 13, 1999.
looks like the Shit Shoveler was right!
Way to go BKS!
Quick moderators, delete this! you wouldn't want anyone to see this proof that many so-called experts said Jan1 was THE day.
-- Crow Hunter (email@example.com doomers), January 11, 2000.