Quotably Quoted #51

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

I'm a doomer. I want to be wrong about the infrastructure. I want to be very wrong. Three weeks from today, if I am, I will re-post this very heading using my real name.

I pray I have that opportunity.

Best Wishes,

Someone Some Once Knew

-- Someone Some Once Knew (someone@once.com), December 11, 1999

Answers

Then if February you can tell us that it will be March or April before things really come to the forefront......... In the meantime we can expect to be given two or three more dates for the impending asteroid that will doom us all............

Not to forget the 'increase in earthquakes' (hahahahahahahaha......we've already debunked that fallacy) that will get us all shortly.

If Y2k is very serious we will see enough in January to know. If those pesky embedded chips are as deadly as some would have us believe, there is no reason why they should wait for a few months to kill us all.....the other stuff is peanuts in comparison and bad code is being repaired on a regular basis, Y2K or no Y2k.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), December 11, 1999.


Craig, if I were only half as stupid as you seem to be, I would never let anyone know by posting the kind of idiotic drivel that you post here. Anyone who understands the nature of the systemic threat posed by Y2K will also understand the compounding of errors and the cascading consequences of massive data corruption, and will also understand that this could take at least a month, perhaps two, before it becomes a global catastrophe. We will know in February whether we'll still be functioning in March. What a maroon.

-- cody (cody@y2ksurvive.com), December 11, 1999.

There was never a reason to prepare for a catastrophic Y2k.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 11, 2000

Answers

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage? topicID=7118.topic

Today's Zombie

http://pub5.ezboard.com/udkulha.showPublicProfile?language=EN

-- Today's Citizen Zombie (What-don'tYou@understand.edu), July 11, 2000.


"CODY". Now there was a "special case". So sure of the coming disaster that he had his little web business set up just to be helpful of course.

And now??

As Matt Lauer might say, "Where in the world is Cody Varian?"

Another of the vanished or was he ever for real to begin with? Was he a Cyber creation of one Mike Adams, CODY, Wy. the cyber hustler to the end who also has left us?

INQUIRING MINDS sort of want to know but don't much care,,,,except to point out that they helped themselves to a lot of money that could have gone to better things instead of their COMMISSIONS FOR NET DEALS.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 11, 2000.


B-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-R-R-R-R-R-I-N-G !

HISTORY IS SUCH A BORING FUCKING SUBJECT, GOT ANY EXCITING NEWS ABOUT CURRENT EVENTS?

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 11, 2000.


"History is such a boring topic?" This is why the most fame you will achieve in your miserable fame is being known as the BIG TEXT GUY.

-- (buy@text.book), July 11, 2000.

At least BIG TEXT GUY only uses ONE name...at least I think so. Time for De Bunkies to track him down and PUT THIS ASSHOLE'S NAME ON THE MORON ZOOMBIE LIST!!!

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 12, 2000.


Wait a minute Andy Ray. For all your dog whipping cody may have something here. Craig may be "maroon". Would have guessed a subtle vermilion myself but what the hell, I'm color blind.

Uh-oh. How come I feel I just opened a floodgate with the word blind?

Save me Malcolm.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 12, 2000.


B-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-R-R-R-R-I-N-G !

JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT I LOOK LIKE IN PURPLE. WHAT IS THE LARGEST SIZE TEXT WE CAN GET HERE? COULD PHIL CHANGE THE SETTINGS TO MAKE IT ABOUT 10 TIMES THIS BIG? I WOULD LIKE TO POST MY MESSAGES SO THAT EACH LETTER TAKES UP THE WHOLE PAGE. THEN WE CAN READ WITHOUT HUNCHING OVER OUR COMPUTERS AND SQUINTING, AT A NICE LEISURELY PACE, ONE LETTER AT A TIME. JUST THINK HOW MUCH NICER LIFE WOULD BE IF WE COULD ABSORB IT ONE LETTER AT A TIME.

-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 12, 2000.


Prick!

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 12, 2000.

T

E

S

T

I

N

G

1

2

3

4

T

E

S< P>T

I

N

G

1

2

3

4

YES, IT NEEDS TO BE MUCH LARGER.



-- (BIG@TEXT.MAN), July 12, 2000.



-- - (-@-.-), July 12, 2000.


big text=small testicles

-- (a@fact.jack), July 12, 2000.

big text=no testicles

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 12, 2000.

Ra:

Wait just a minute there, Bud. I represent that last remark, and I don't need big text to compensate for my lack of external genitals.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 12, 2000.


Anita

Allow me to air the clear on this matter. Elective, corrective, or selective surgery was implied.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 12, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ