Paula Gordon? Screw that, King of Spain SIGHTING!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Come on, ya gotta love the King. Who want's to mud-wrestle! But I thought he vanished somewhere around rollover. Funny to see him at Yourdon's in April...

That's what I hate about this quote stuff. We've seen Paula's comments, but we didn't see what started the discussion. Hummm, I wonder why...

HOW TRUE IS THIS???

Many times back on ye olde TB2000, I was absolutely amazed at the tenacity displayed by pollyannas, in many cases seemingly on a sort of "mission" to "save" those like myself from wasting money preparing for Y2K. Now, don't get me wrong, these people at least THOUGHT (at some level) about Y2K, read the same data that I did, and came to the DEFINITE conclusion that Y2K was going to be no more than a 3-day-storm/bump-in-the-road/no-biggie -- this was better than the 95% of the population that appeared to simply chose to ignore the issue altogether.

However, the actions on the part of the "concerned" pollies often became bizarre, replete with web sites devoted to "bashing" Y2K doomers, especially the more prominent ones, like Gary North. It would have been so easy for a web site to have been set up that would "mirror" North's, with the same links -- but giving a polly commentary on the evidence that North presented. However, this was never done; the polly sites seemed to always be more oriented to "shooting the messenger" than actually dealing with the "message".

My own conjecture as to why is as follows: The pollies seem to be more FAITH driven, rather than FACT driven. They ASSUME that doomers are likewise faith driven, and thus they reason that if one can cause a doomer to "lose faith" in the "leaders" of the Y2K "cult", then this will suffice in place of actually discussing the evidence at hand.

Comments?...

King of Spain - 04/08/00

Peace... <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 30, 2000

Answers

They ASSUME that doomers are likewise faith driven, and thus they reason that if one can cause a doomer to "lose faith" in the "leaders" of the Y2K "cult", then this will suffice in place of actually discussing the evidence at hand.

A lot of the messages by 'pollys' in Jan. 1999 were about whether Ed Yourdon was a Y2K expert. They had to take that approach then, because Jan. 1999 was in between the late 1998 House Y2K report and the Feb. 1999 Senate Y2K report -- a period when there wasn't much good news yet about Y2K.

I had read Ed Yourdon's book and its wide variety of scenarios in mid- 1998, but that's not why I started buying extra groceries and bottled water. The reason I did end up starting to prep in late 1998 was because of how many organizations waited until 1998 to start their projects, ballooning cost estimates for Y2K repairs, and what I read about Y2K risks from what one would think were reputable sources of information.

I will say there was no question in late 1998 that a majority of the Y2K work that was needed in the U.S. would be done by the end of 1999, but I didn't know how much of a majority that was going to be. That uncertainty is why I prepared -- it wasn't 'leaders.'

I was happy to note in late summer last year that most of the power companies in the U.S. were ready, but many cities, states, smaller businesses and foreign countries still did not appear to be ready. Supply chain disruptions still concerned me at the end of 1999, simply because the world as a whole looked as if it still had a significant amount a Y2K work remaining.

-- Uncertain of Y2K up (to@the.rollover), June 30, 2000.


Actually, I did see "what started the discussion"; the link was given. I wonder why/how you missed it. But you wanted "comments"; so, OK, here goes.

Speaking for myself, the "faith" part is definitely a bit true. But if you think about it, Sysman, "faith" is true for ALL of us. (You pick up your phone and, what? You expect to hear a dial tone; that's faith that the phone company guys know what they're doing. You flip on a light switch and, what? You expect the lights to come on; that's faith that the power company guys know what they're doing. Yet suddenly, because of a "date change", you, and many like you, lost faith that these people knew what they were doing.)

I have to LMAO at this:

"It would have been so easy for a web site to have been set up that would "mirror" North's, with the same links -- but giving a polly commentary on the evidence that North presented."

Uh, "King", there was BFI and Debunker, but you (and many of a like mind) chose to see nothing BUT "the messengers" at those sites. How odd that he seemingly now wants to blame "pollies" for HIS lack of information. Would he, or any of you of "like mind", have paid any heed whatsoever to a site such as he describes? I would have to doubt it. I don't see the "debate" being any different had there been a "Patricia's Site for Actual Y2K Information, With No Spin Attached".

And please, who raised "shooting the messenger while ignoring the message" to an art form? (HINT: It wasn't "pollies". Hasn't he been paying attention to Andy Ray's Trip Down Memory Lane?) I have to further laugh.....the sum total of this one's "contributions" to the Y2K information pool was....."do you like to mudwrestle". And now he's some kind of "information expert"?

I can't even comment on the so-called "evidence" that he implies was being discussed. There is just no diplomatic way to do it.

"Uncertain" has listed virtually every "doomer" cliche to date, and once again I have to ask (because some day I just might get an answer -- ever hopeful): Is this the DOT-GOV you believe or the one that lies, spins, covers-up and is awash in conspiracies? How is it eternally possible that you do not see this contradiction in your own "arguments"?

Further, you claim that you were "uncertain" about "...many cities, states, smaller businesses and foreign countries" who "still did not appear to be ready". Did you simply not see the reports that had been released prior to December, 1999? Did you just ignore those reports? Or need you refer to the previous paragraph for your explanation?

Why was it that the rest of the world wasn't worried, but this "faction" on TB2K (and similar fora) thought they had it all figured out (the "GIs")? Why was it that this "faction" screamed bloody murder for insider industry information, yet when it was given, blew it off as lies, spin, etc., calling those messengers "shills"? Why was it that you chose to believe the "words" of a crystal-reader, who parrotted every possible "doom" cliche and put more than enough of a sarcastic spin on any report ("or NOT"), versus those of an industry insider? Could it have been because the crystal reader led you in the direction you actually wanted to believe?

Can either of you explain this? And frankly, I'm not the one you need to explain it to ... you need to explain it to yourselves because by your very postings here, you still suffer from the same disconnect that led you to "believe" that Y2K Was Going To Be A Bad Thing. I don't expect (nor do I want) an "apology" from anyone; I don't really care enough about the matter. But those who continue at this late date to "justify" their so-called "positions" are doing nothing more than rationalizing an irrational decision to themselves. (And holding up KOS as a "justification" is beneath you, Sysman.) If that's what it takes for these people to be satisfied, so be it. Just realize that it's nothing more than a temporary salve.

Sorry, Sysman, but you did ask for "comments". Honestly, I'm sick of this bullshit.....on both "sides". We can "debate" this crap from now until the proverbial cows come home and the bottom line is that some people are just prone to "doom-like" beliefs. Others choose to believe (like "pollyannas") that the world really isn't so bad, and that there isn't the proverbial "communist" or "conspiracy" hiding under every stone.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 30, 2000.


Patricia,
There is no debate. If Silly Sysman has to ask "how true is this?" about something at a "king of spain mud wrestler fan" asks, it displays AGAIN.........his total inability to understand just **HOW MUCH OF A ZERO Y2k was on the IMPACT SCREEN.***

Even EY is too embarrassed to comment now beyond "Y2k is over" but in that case it only means he has explored every possibility and can't find one single way to MILK IT FOR ANOTHER DIME.

That probably more than any other single thing is why ALL OF THEM ....want to "change" or "drop" the SUBJECT of this forum. **TB--- ->TIME-BOMB2000<___caused by the CDC computer errors what would in turn be TEOTW. BS ***THEN**. BS **NOW**.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 30, 2000.


Actually, Charlie, Sysman is simply trying to make a point, much the same as you are and as Andy Ray is (and, in a way, as we all are). Sysman just chose "KOS" to make his point; I gave him my comments.

I don't really give a rat's patout about Ed Yourdon, to be honest about it. The man will get whatever it is he deserves; either in this life or the next. Gary North will simply latch on to the next perceived Really Bad Thing That's Going To Happen, as he always does. He will continue to sell two-year subscriptions to his Remnant Rag, and the faithful will buy it (in more ways than one). Hyatt has already gone on to the next Really Big Thing...How To Survive (as if mankind hasn't shown we can do that to this point, despite all of our dumb-ass moves). Steve Heller will continue to post his Resume all over the Internet; someday, someone might pick up on it (like I said above, I'm ever hopeful). St. Leon of Denton is already on to the next Really Bad Thing, and from what I can tell, he got a promotion. Justice? Not in this life. Do I care? Not any longer.

Matters not to me as (a) they did not influence my decisions on anything (except to try to debunk the crapola); and, (b) it's not for me to judge their actions. "What goes around, comes around." No truer sentiment can be applied here.

As to why anyone wants this to go away, I disagree with your reasoning. See the last paragraph of my post for reasons "why". Further, if you made a kind of dumb-ass move, would you want it thrown up in your face repeatedly? I know I wouldn't. And I'm really not a fan of kicking people when they're down; that's where if I can help, I will -- the "past" be damned (that's why they call it The Past). "Do unto others....." and all that.

As for *my* reasons why I want this to go away (and despite appearances to the contrary, I really *do* want this to go away), I'm freaking tired of saying the same thing and asking the same perpetually-unanswered questions as I have for the past four years. I can take a hint (usually).

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 30, 2000.


Neatly put, Patricia...

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 30, 2000.


Come on, ya gotta love the King.

No, I don't Sysman. Never did. And that he was a TB2000 favorite should have told me something about the crowd I was hangin' with. My bad.

Patricia, you are intelligent, beautiful, and I'm in complete agreement with you on all counts.

The EZboarders must be laughing into their keyboards and I don't blame them. This forum is taking the full frontal assault from the foamers for no other reason than accessibility. Oh, and the NAME has the acronym TB2K in it. That's logical. Yup.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), June 30, 2000.


I'd agree with Bingo on this one, Sysman. KOS fell for the "hoople" lock, stock, and barrel." He once posted something stating, "Why do these polly-trolls ask these silly questions?" I responded, "You mean like, 'Do you want to mud-wrestle?'"? In his defence, he did respond with "Touche, Anite." On another thread, a poster from Spain thought KOS was REALLY from Spain. He went into a tirade on why folks were entering the forum who weren't from the U.S. DUH! The internet is global?

When KOS left the forum, he thanked all the pollies who hadn't "reamed" him. Now, four or five months later, he's back into "Bad polly" mode. Y2kPro...a poster on TB2000 who had MUCH to offer in the early period was totally ignored by KOS. Was his memory faulty regarding the experience Pro brought to the table of discussion? I simply think KOS wants to fit in. Heh...it's not like his choice of hobbies throws him into the majority.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 30, 2000.


Sigh. Here we go again. My memories agree with Patricia's.

I don't recall any pollies saying there would be no problems whatever. The unchanging crux of the polly position was that the doomers were building a case that didn't even TRY to make any pretense of honesty.

The government put out a very large number of y2k reports. A very small minority of these expressed serious concerns, and these were cited as "facts". The remainder extolled real progress, so these were "spin".

Whenever Koskinen said the problem was real but manageable, the "real" part became the "fact" and the "manageable" part was the "spin".

Horn's report cards sometimes showed departments making a decade's worth of progress in one quarter! Nobody in the doomer camp commented on this, nor did anyone EVER mention that Horn is a Republican grading a Democratic administration. Politics? Nahhh. Similarly, GAO was always more pessimistic than OMB. Republicans controlled GAO, and OMB is the executive equivalent. Politics? Nahhh. GAO and Horn were "facts", OMB and the departments themselves were "spin".

In the private sector, we had a veritable avalanche of "y2k ready" reports, all "spin". We had a few sources milking y2k for income (Yourdon, Adams, Hyatt) or other clear motives (North). These were the "facts". We had remediators everywhere expressing confidence in their projects (hell, even on TB2K, Sysman's "1000 years of experience" people were all confident of their OWN projects, it was always the "other guy" who would bring us down. And these were the pessimists!). These hands-on people were "self-serving self- reporting", of course. We also had outsiders known to have wonky ideas (like "RC" Coombs), but that didn't matter. These were "facts".

In short, there was one single simple rule used to evaluate the credibility of any information -- whether or not it could be interpreted as Very Bad. It never mattered if the source was a known kook, or anonymous, or inconsistent, or politically motivated, or a pig farmer, or in it only for the money. If it was Bad, it was "Fact".

Now for the interesting part. Like all of us, KOS notices that nothing of consequence happened anywhere in the world. Nothing. He meditates on this for a few months. How can this be? His "facts" have turned out to be false, without exception, right down the line. Hmmmmm.

And he comes to the conclusion that he had the "facts" after all!! And that those who kept pointing out all that stuff above had only "faith"! But KOS is perfectly normal in this respect. It's human nature that Rule One is, I am right. Rule Two is, when I'm obviously, hilariously wrong, see Rule One! Y2K has clearly reached the Final Phase Of The Project -- to reward the guilty and punish the innocent. The alternative would be to recognize the madness of his method, something KOS simply cannot come to terms with.

So the last cause failed miserably, as usual. On to the next cause. Causes come and go, the errors remain the same, because the method never changes. Y2K has been reduced to a detailed snapshot illustrating how some of the people can be fooled all of the time. It's self inflicted. Now, just what are those chemtrails spraying us with...

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 30, 2000.


The whole History of Y2k Hype and Fear was a history lesson in the use of the INTERNET TO CHANGE THE *SALES PITCHES* AND RATIONALIZATIONS AS NEEDED. Now the Bozos of Y2k are still trying to start the next "Crisis" with AWL. BS CUBED. LEARN THE LESSON. Post CDC History Lesson.

Day one (Ultimate Midnight plus ); "I'm so glad we made it. But we'll have to wait until Monday" (Doomzies plus Yourdon and Kappelman) Day 3 Monday Night: ZIP. "Well, it looks better than we thought but its still too early to tell. And we still have years of embedded problems." (The whole choir).

End of Week One: "Is someone collecting any problems in a data base?" (Reply: GICC and "glitch central" and Koskinen. Of course, the latter would be "spun" but the Glitch central and GICC would be "reliable".

End of Week Three: "I want everyone to be sure that all the reports get to Glitch Central and if anyone knows anything privately, I'm collecting those reports" (assorted Doom Zombies). Yourdon even posted "send me any unreported problems" (you may assume that he was looking for *anything* to use as a "straw".) End of Week Three: "Alaska airline plane done. Y2k Pooooof (not proof)". After that "every thing" bad was Y2k from too much rain to not enough rain to OPEC squeezing the Oil Market etc. Meanwhile, "R.C. Coombes" of the Babylon Alien Cult is exposed and shown to be what he was. And what he was was NOT any sort of "insider who "really, really knew" ". Jim Lord is mighty quiet but he, Warren BoneHead and Susan Camp Scout Tutor Conniry join "I'm only interested in your self preservation" Hyatt who has suddenly lost interest in Y2k which he just "knows" is much worse than the public is being told. End of Jan. "Well, look at all those problems at Glitch Central. " Carl Jenkins (anon. e-mail of course) posts 10-15 x day anything he can find that looks real BAAAAAAD. For awhile the soon to be self- reformed Uncle Bob tries the same game but wakes up faster. NOTE: END OF JAN: NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THE DOOMZIES,,,,bothered to "remember" that the End of Jan. was also the closing of the Quarter or Year for Big Retail. How do we know? Ms JO ANNE No_EFFECT told the world in 1999, Jan. But in 2000....NOT A WORD. **GOOD JOB DOOMZIES*** You learned from the 1999 "Season" not to repeat the same failed predictions. (Instead, you make new ones that failed to come true..) Week 6. "Leap Year won't be much but there will be some." Pauline Revere Gordon mumbles like Jim Lord "its all cumulative". SO...Y2k was gonny be here by WHEN 2005???? March 5. Leap Year forgotten and along with it,,,,the coming closing of the books for the First Quarter. From Feb. to Now the new theme song of the Doomzies and Brainwashed is heard, "I'm glad it wasn't bad, I was wrong but with excuses, sorry BUT.....I did what was right for ME." (Heavy emphasis on ME because as we know, there isn't a more selfish lot of SCRUMS in the world than "I'm preparing before anyone else first while I can still buy". (Remember the "stores will be out of food by the first week because they only carry 72hours of stock??) THE INTERNET MADE ALL THIS BS..DRIVEL POSSIBLE. IT was the INTERNET THAT LET THE DOOM LEADERS AND FANS,,,,,,,CHANGE THE SALES PITCH....and "answer the objections" to sales.....as the days grew short to CDC and they ran OUT OF EXCUSES.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), June 30, 2000.


Bingo, you wrote: (re KOS) No, I don't Sysman. Never did. And that he was a TB2000 favorite should have told me something about the crowd I was hangin' with. My bad."

You can probably say that about some of "the crowd [you were] hangin' with", but I don't believe for a minute they were all like that. One of the (rare) things I agreed with on TB2K was the "community spirit" that was felt there. I felt it, too, with my "cyber-friends" on Debunker and BFI. It's not "bad"; it just "is". Most humans want to belong to a group; they want to be accepted and to be liked. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, even if you think you are a "hermit" :-)

(Thank you for the very kind sentiments.)

Re: The EZboarders: You, above most others, don't really give a care if "they" are "laughing into their keyboards", do you? Let them laugh. It's my guess there isn't much humor in their lives. They got exactly what they were looking (hoping?) for.....Their Own Personal Doom. Think about it -- what kind of a life can it be when all they see are DOT-GOV conspiracies and chemtrails and black helicopters and possible concentration camps (a.k.a., Bad News)? You can almost picture some of them holed up in their "bunkers" armed to the teeth. That's not a life; that's doom -- exactly what they expected out of Y2K.

Trouble is they didn't realize that's what they were living all along. Do I feel sorry for them? In a way, yes; that's my humanity. Do I really care? No, and to a certain extent, it pains me that I feel that way, but there it is.

But this is the problem I am having with this current "debate" on this board; the people to whom it is really directed aren't "here". Oh, I'm sure many of them "lurk" and I suppose a "case" can be made; but people like cpr and Andy Ray and others are not permitted to post this on EZBoard. This is the logical place to post it, even if I think it's an exercise in futility and it's time to move on and up to bigger and better things.

And believe me, it is.

(Now if you will excuse me, The Pointer Sisters are on and I'm feeling a bit nostalgic.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 30, 2000.



Bingo, you wrote: (re KOS) No, I don't Sysman. Never did. And that he was a TB2000 favorite should have told me something about the crowd I was hangin' with. My bad."

You can probably say that about some of "the crowd [you were] hangin' with", but I don't believe for a minute they were all like that. One of the (rare) things I agreed with on TB2K was the "community spirit" that was felt there. I felt it, too, with my "cyber-friends" on Debunker and BFI. It's not "bad"; it just "is". Most humans want to belong to a group; they want to be accepted and to be liked. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, even if you think you are a "hermit" :-)

"My bad" refers to the long leash I gave to too many people on TB2000, especially the ones in charge. My practice is one of constant assessment of my environment and the people within it. Who is acting from which parts of their being? Manipulation? Ego-inflation? Compassion? This is odd I grant you, but it is my way.

I hung on through July at TB2000 because of people like Flint, Stan, Ken, my dear friends in the NW and a few others. I hoped beyond hope TPTB there would see the errors of their ways. Alas they did not.

Yes, it was nice to connect with a passionate community. This old hermit learned the importance of opening up to people. That is why I'm here at Spinoff - to continue the lesson. And to mix with sweet, intelligent, (stubborn), folks of varying walks of life & experience.

-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), July 01, 2000.


You know what I think is funny? Guys like Kevin, who change their "handle" but post the exact same tripe over and over....easy to spot (first response to sysman). C'mon musicmixer....show some backbone and use your old "name" instead of changing every few posts. I can tell you this....you will NOT get away with your revisionist history attempts.

I don't know what your connection is to Yourdon, but you came as close to a "shill" for Yourdum as you could.

Care to comment on your "relationship" with Mr. Ed, Kev?

-- Ancient Lurker (lurker@since.98), July 01, 2000.


I can tell you this....you will NOT get away with your revisionist history attempts.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003HP6

-- (Beware@of.revisionists), July 01, 2000.


So, Kev....you gonna answer the question, or just sidestep (as usual)?

-- Ancient Lurker (hanging@out.now), July 02, 2000.

BTW....

Old info but still being ignored (Stinkbomb I, march 99)

See the "spin" for yourself.

-- Ancient Lurker (hanging@out.now), July 02, 2000.



An interesting debate between those who knew what they were talking about and those who did not.

And those who did not used the same argument that controlled that forum for the duration -- that a failure to guarantee was THE SAME as a guarantee of failure.

Very entertaining.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 02, 2000.


No, Flint, you are wrong -- failure to guarantee meant prepare AS IF there would be failure, not that there "surely" would be. Which brings us back to our old friends, Mr. Odds and Mr. Stakes. Can you see the difference?

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), July 02, 2000.

WD-40:

One of is missing something, for sure. The number of potentially fatal threats you face is infinite. Maximum stakes. Despite all these, you likely live a normal life in blind defiance of these stakes. Why? Because you know the odds against even all of them at once don't add up to enough to spend your entire life cowering underground.

Now, this is perfectly rational of you. Why? Because you *understand* the odds, and properly reckon them low enough to permit a normal life, despite the highest possible stakes. Y2k was different *only* in that the odds were blown WAY out of proportion to the reality, by those who refused to understand them.

By your argument, you should NEVER come up to the surface for fear of being struck by a meteor. That would KILL you! Stakes, man, Stakes!

Yet you're up here anyway. Think about it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 02, 2000.


WD, you wrote (in part): "...failure to guarantee meant prepare AS IF there would be failure, not that there "surely" would be."

What guarantees do you get now? And prior to having heard anything about The Dreaded Y2K Problem, what kind of guarantees did you get then? Did you ask for any? When you didn't get any guarantees, did you Prepare then "AS IF there would be failure"?

Your statement implies that you did not receive any guarantees for the rollover. Did you or will you take your business to another power company, another water company, another phone company? Aside from "the water company", this is easier to do today than in years past. (You always get a guarantee from your bank up to a certain amount, so I assume you are not speaking of banks.) And if you have taken or will take your business elsewhere, did you get any guarantees from the new companies?

Why was it so hell-fire important that GUARANTEES be given for the rollover, when none are given at any other time (nor were any DEMANDED at any other time)? Do you not see how much money the utilities (and banks and other entities) had to WASTE to appease the irrational fears of people like you who DEMANDED guarantees? Do you further realize that we ALL get to pay for that?

Maybe I should send YOU my part of the bill because I didn't DEMAND any ridiculous "guarantees" from these entities.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 02, 2000.


If Y2K was not a threat to any electric utility and never was, then the industry should have plainly said so.

-- The value of (being@plain.spoken), July 02, 2000.

"The value of (being@plain.spoken)": See my posts earlier in this thread, then come back and explain.

(IOW, reports WERE issued and issued and issued...ad nauseum. And what did you do with those reports? Did you believe them or [and here's the crux of my argument] did you blow them off as lies, spin, PR, etc.? If the latter, who's to blame but yourself? Further, part of the "costs" I was discussing were those stupid little inserts that arrived in every freaking utility bill [and every other kind of bill and statement] for months prior to the rollover; did you just not see them? If you didn't see them or if you didn't believe them, again, who's to blame but yourself?)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 02, 2000.


Y2K was bounded by a well delineated segment of time, not vaguely in the future. This is what made the difference. Had the problem not been so well encapsulated, the motivation to prepare would have been a lot less, undoubtedly.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), July 03, 2000.

WE the (former) doomers over-reacted to an insignificant,miniscule threat and in the process did all the right things for ALL the wrong reasons.Shoot us.

Patricia,

It seems like you have a good grasp and perspective on life.

To all,

Lats Let's PARTY!!! like it's 19.... I mean July 4th 2000 ; )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 03, 2000.


hmmm,

: P)...

Needa beer?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), July 03, 2000.


I'm still waiting for Kev to answer. Should I hold my breath, do you think???

:J

-- Ancient Lurker (since@19.98), July 03, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ