No matter how this shakes out, start writing your Senators and representatives in Congress.

Unless, of course, you'd like to spend another year or two like this one.

Why was this allowed to happen in the first place? Why should it ever be allowed to happen again?

Y2k Pro, be afraid, be VERY afraid.

It's coming your way.

-- guess (who@will.beblamed), November 24, 1999

Answers

Especially, because, as I understand it, the REAL millennium doesn't begin until 2001.

Watch the "Doomers" kick the "Pollys" asses!

They may not even have to lift a finger. Think of all the taxpayer dollars spent fixing this problem.

ROTFLMAO!!!

-- guess (who@will.beblamed), November 24, 1999.

Need motivation? Read up on the bloated bug farm that is "Windows 2000." Coming soon to the new computer you will have to purchase in order to run it after everything you've invested so much money in during the past few years becomes quickly obsolete.

We never had to replace furnaces this fast. What's wrong with this picture?

-- guesswho (will@be.blamed), November 24, 1999.

>the REAL millennium doesn't begin until 2001.

Actually a millenium can begin with any year chosen as a convention! I understand the argument for 2001, but also believe it should be zero-based so we can keep a lot of our other conventions in line, like the 1900's instead of the 1901-2000's. Without zero-basing the year 2000 doesn't have a clear decade that it belongs to. It can't be part of the 1990's and it can't be part of the first decade of the new millenium either. Zero-based decades demand zero-based centuries and millenia. Or should we call this decade the 1991-2000's?

-- Slobby Don (slobbydon@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

Bill Gates for President, Gary North for Vice President

-- (dweebs@innaugural.parties), November 24, 1999.

I guess that means Bill Gates would have us replace our furnaces bi-annually, and Gary North would prefer solar panels.

Cute, but no point to your post.

-- guesswho (will@be.blamed), November 24, 1999.