Subject:	Re: Utilities ready -- blackouts expected
Date:	1999/07/01
Author:	Paul Milne <fedinfo@halifax.com>
	Posting History

JBuck10447 wrote in message <19990701155911.12475.00002673@ng-cr1.aol.com>... >From AOL news feed -- no URL (should be avaiable on net based Bloomberg site) > >Utilities Say They're Y2K Ready, Though Blackouts Expected > >Washington, June 30 (Bloomberg) -- Most U.S. utilities said today that their >power plants and transmission lines  are ``Y2K ready,'' though experts still >expect some power failures when the New Year comes. > >Utilities were asked to report their level of ``readiness'' to the North >American Electric Reliability Council today. While a full report on the results >won't be ready until July 29, dozens of utilities declared their success at >finding and eliminating the Millennium bug. > >Electric utilities spent billions of dollars over the past several years to >prepare for the day when aging computer and analog systems can't determine >whether the digits ``00'' represent the year 1900 or 2000. They've been >upgrading and testing components of power plants and distribution systems, and >setting up contingency plans in case of failures. > >``Utilities are scared,'' said Cameron Daley, chief operating officer of >Framingham, Massachusetts-based Tava/R.W. Beck, which tested and upgraded >systems for more than 100 U.S. utilities. ``The whole grid won't collapse, but >there will be outages that could last up to several weeks.'' > >While no utility has guaranteed there won't be blackouts Jan. 1, industry >groups said utilities are doing everything they can to prevent problems, >including preparing for the worst. > >``We believe Y2K won't be a problem,'' said Eugene Gorzelnik, a spokesman for >the council. ``There will be a huge backlash if a utility reports it's Y2K >ready, and it turns out that it wasn't.'' > >Edison International's Southern California Edison utility, which has spent $72 >million on Y2K preparation, said it plans to dispatch an extra 500 employees on >New Year's Eve. Wisconsin Energy Corp.'s Wisconsin Electric Power Co. plans to >have as much as 50 percent more electricity available than it normally needs at >that time of year. > >Still, deregulation has pushed utilities to cut labor and other costs, and >those that are deepest in negotiations with regulators haven't been as focused >on preventing problems related to the millennium bug, Daley said. > >``The utilities most distracted by deregulation aren't doing enough to identify >and prevent problems,'' Daley said. ``There are a number of instances where >utilities didn't go deep enough into their systems -- they accepted vendors' >words that parts of a system were compliant.'' > >Even if a utility corrects all the problems in its own system, power still may >be cut off to their customers. That's because U.S. and Canadian power lines >connect all utilities, and when one utility system breaks down, it could cause >problems for others. > >``We cannot provide warranties (against blackouts) because our readiness >depends in part on other parties,'' said Samuel Manno, director of Niagara >Mohawk Power Corp.'s Y2K project. > >At the trade council's suggestion, utilities agreed to conduct the first major >test of the entire power systems' ability to properly recognize dates beyond >1999 on September 9. > >``We hope to learn what still needs to be done at that point and correct any >glitches before they happen,'' Gorzelnik said. > >Jun/30/1999  20:01   =======   Help me out with this one. Utilities will not make a claim that they are compliant. They claim to be 'ready'. When i was a kid, 'ready'  meant 'ready'. Not 'almost' ready. Or maybe ready.   Then I read this , above...   "``Utilities are scared,'' said Cameron Daley, chief operating officer of Framingham, Massachusetts-based Tava/R.W. Beck, which tested and upgraded systems for more than 100 U.S. utilities. ``The whole grid won't collapse, but there will be outages that could last up to several weeks.''     Power outages that could last up to several weeks. This is not READINESS in ANY sense of the word.  First they say that they hope to be compliant . Then they say that they can not make guarantees. then they say that they will be ready, where 'ready' is defined to include several weeks of power outages.   In this case, 'ready' means NOTHING at all.   If you ask me if I am ready, and I say yes, and then each time you have to wait an hour for me to get dressed, you would quickly recognize that when I say I am 'ready' I am NOT.   Then recognize that when Utilities say that they will be 'ready' but you can expect power outages, then they ARE NOT ready at all.   How many people will DIE as a direct result of their redfined 'readiness'?     Paul Milne

-- a (a@a.a), July 01, 1999

Answers

Finally, a link:

http://www.aol.com/mynews/business/story.adp/cat=020102&id=19990630080 19182

-TECH32-

-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), July 01, 1999.

Actually Paul, I think they've made it quite clear what it is they are ready for. Luckily, we sold a car to put solar panels on our roof. We're ready as well. A little pop-corn in the nuc-it, 'Last of the Mohicans' on the tube....ready freddy! (wouldn't want to be in Wichita)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

Question: Do electricity suppliers in the US guarantee that power will be available on a day-to-day basis?

I'm pretty sure they don't here in the UK.

If people are waiting for guarantees of power on 1/1/2000, they may never be satisfied. (Same goes for water and gas.)

Would anyone here consider a statement of Y2K compliance or readiness from an electricity supplier to be, in effect, a guarantee of power from 1/1/2000 onwards?

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), July 02, 1999.

Richard,

Let's ask the proper question. I've modified your statement by adding the words following the dash:

"Would anyone here consider a statement of Y2K compliance or readiness from an electricity supplier to be, in effect, a guarantee of power from 1/1/2000 onwards -- at the same level of service we are provided with today?"

The occasional outages most people have are simple inconveniences. That's not what is being discussed......and you know it.

-- De (delewis@inetone.net), July 02, 1999.

It all depends on what the meaning of *ready* is. So I looked up the meaning of ready in my dictionary, the same one I looked up the meaning of IS one time. ready 1.Prepared for use or action. 2. Prepared in mind; willing. 3. Likely or liable: with to: ready to sink. 4. Quick to act, follow, occur, or appear; prompt. 5. Immediately available or at hand; convenient; handy.6. Designating the standard position in which a rifle is held just before aiming. 7. Quick to perceive or understand; alert.

So i believe the meaning of ready in this case would be 3. If everyone here is ready what meaing of ready are you?

Billy...... hidin in the hills

-- Billy (Hillbilly@Hillville.com), July 02, 1999.

I can't help but wonder, how many business owners out there could 'absorb' three weeks without power? If it happened twice in a few months? I'm assuming if it could happen once, it could happen again, especially under these conditions. Grocery stores? Truckstops? Hospitals? Office buildings? Oil pipelines in cold climates? We know gas can't be pumped with generators or filled straight from tankers. Three weeks. Newspapers, TV stations, phones.....several weeks? Hmmmm That *could* seem like a very long time to most. What is 'several'? More than two but fewer than many.....So they're ready for fewer than many....that's nice. If it turns out to be 'many', will they be ready for that as well? Are you?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

when i tell my gentlemen caller friends that i am ready they know exactly what i mean. send some of these electrical sillies on over to my place for a "ready" lesson.

zap.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.

Hoff must be sleeping in this morning. Have you seen him corrine?

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

De:

I don't see what difference your modified question makes. The key word in it is guarantee, however you phrase it. My point was that if that's what people are looking for, they're probably going to be disappointed.

If an electricity company believes/fears that a statement of Y2K compliance or readiness would be misconstrued as a guarantee of power (something not normally given), perhaps it would be reluctant to make that statement. I'd like to know whether such fears are unfounded, or perfectly reasonable.

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), July 02, 1999.

The above URL (to read the story for yourself) doesn't work. However, if you go there and then go to the search engine, and type in "blackout," the story will surface.

-- confused (it's@so.confusing), July 02, 1999.

Richard Dymond - [mooning you here] - what we'd like is for any utility who thinks there may be a wittle bit o' trouble to recommend that CUSTOMERS - yeah, baby - CUSTOMERS prepare for it via alternate heating and cooking sources. Capish? Comprende? Get the peanut butter outcher ears.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), July 02, 1999.

I couldn't care less whether the power companies "guaranteed" uninterrupted power next year or not. I am so damn tired of being lied to, and having spin put on everything from the media, the industry groups, and the government.

We've had guarantees from the FAA. Lies. Now they say they're all fixed. Lie. No functioning Y2K compatible air traffic control system in place.

They are all just buying six more months of the "good times." It's over. If it's not the power, it's the oil. If it's not the oil, it's the banks. If it's not the banks, it's the government. If it's not the government, it's the hospitals. It doesn't frickin' matter. They are all broken, and they all need about three more years and three trillion dollars to get fixed.

Beep. Time's up.

Enjoy the holiday weekend, everyone. Even the Brit. England made this U.S. holiday possible, right?

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 02, 1999.

"Lies, all lies"

I guess, if that's all you're left with, you gotta go with it.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 02, 1999.

Hoff

Go debunk the BIS thread. I'm waiting.

-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), July 02, 1999.

OK, just for discussion, let's assume they are ALL ready (there is no evidence or even press releases, but let's assumen ALL). Since responsible utilities who are READY are also hoarding 60-90 days of coal, etc., instead of the usual (30?), this means that responsible CUSTOMERS might wisely be prepared ("hoarding") for potential outages and/or situations that the best contingency planning of responsible utilities didn't anticipate. Right? Right? Right?

Robert, as usual, hits the proverbial nail. In a situation where remediation can, at best, keep power reliability where it has been and when the history of hardware/software indicates that there will inevitably be FOF situations (whether new dev or maintenance), it is scarcely paranoia to hope for the best, plan for the WORST.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), July 02, 1999.

lisa:

Your tone suggests that you believe some utilities expect some problems during the rollover, but are keeping quiet about it. Well, I don't think we can know whether that's true or not, unless perhaps we have contact with insiders. I don't, personally.

Anyway, what's that got to do with the question I asked?

-- Richard Dymond (rdymond@healey-baker.com), July 02, 1999.

BD, never said word one about what anyone should or shouldn't do.

You should always be prepared to handle power outages, and emergencies. The ice storm we had here last winter pointed that out quite effectively.

The point is, I've seen absolutely no evidence that there is any need to prepare for anything more than a short-term outage, which I don't really expect. If someone has concerns locally, they should contact their utility. Same with their bank, and anything else. But the scenarios of widespread collapse have become just poor science fiction.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 02, 1999.

Hoff: short-term? How short?

-- Lisa (lisa@work.now), July 02, 1999.

lisa, i may be out of line here but i don't think it is your place to be asking hoff questions about shortness. posters, please, please, please, can't we all just get along?

.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.

Lisa, I've yet to see any better information than the "absolute worst-case" of 72-hours by Dick Mills:

http://www.y2ktimeb omb.com/PP/RC/dm9925.htm

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 02, 1999.

Yup. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM. THREE DAY STORM.

What was that again? You missed it?

THREE DAY STORM.

Dennis

181 days remain.

-- Dennis (djolson@pressenter.com), July 02, 1999.

Try reading the info, Dennis. You might want to take off those doom-colored glasses, though.

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), July 02, 1999.

denny, i think it was "..three hour tour", not three day storm. although i might be wrong. i never quite understood why mrs. howell packed so many clothes if it was just a three hour tour but you know the idle rich are "different than you or me."

was the professor gay? oh, whatever. he was might handsome.

an ss minnow 21 gun salute mr. sailor man.

-- corrine l (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.

hahaahhaaaa bwaaaaaaaaaahahaah heeeeeeehaaaawhoooooo. kleenex.... give me....k l ee n ex!!!!!! ah...shit, that russian craftsman thing almost finished me t o oooooooooooo!!!

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

Nothing worse than 72 hrs. Hoff. Well our czar on y2k seems to think it could be worse and remember he is the king, I mean czar of spin:

======================================================================

"Yesterday, someone posted in the Play by Play thread something about a Georgia representative who appeared on a radio talk show, saying that Koskinen was telling state officials to make contingency plans for a three week power outage. A couple of us raised eyebrows at that, so I inquired who it was. "I took the time to call GA Rep. Grindley yesterday. In our conversation, he established this and divulged a bit more. Mr. Grindley is chair of Georgia's Task Force 2000. In speaking with the CIO of Georgian state systems, the CIO mentioned that Koskinen had told them to ensure their contingency plans addressed 3 weeks without electric power."

(A "CIO" is a Chief Information Officer - the head computer person.)

I wrote to Representative George Grindley, Jr. to verify that. Here's his reply: . . . .

I did indeed make the statement that you attributed to me. John is using three weeks as the outside possibilty, but I think things could get ugly. I wouldn't give you any odds that nuclear power will be working by then. The feds have said they must be compliant by July 1, or shut down. It takes about 4 months to totally shut down a plant. Personally, I believe a serious concern is the cyber terrorism of the power grid. The department of defense is really concerned that this is being planned. This could last awhile under these conditions.

The truth is,...no one really knows for sure. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, and weigh the risk of preparation with the risk of non-preparation..

Yours in service,

George Grindley State Rep. Dist. 35 Marietta Ga

At about the same time, Cynthia Beal posted a note in the Millennium Salons forum that pointed me toward Cory Hamasaki's DC Weather Report #113. Along with Rick Cowles' interesting account of events related to the Peach Bottom 2 nuclear plant losing its monitoring systems doing Y2K testing, there was this:

"On February 26th, Rick [Cowles] spoke at Y2KWise in Maryland. The meeting was well attended; there were about 200 people who listened, asked incisive and well thought out questions.

After the meeting, I spoke with Rick, got his private assessment. Here's the DC Y2K Weather Report confidential word from Rick:

1. Expect serious problems with power for about a month. No guarantees one way or the other but prepare for black outs, brown outs, rolling black outs, voltage spikes, and other problems.

2. For about a year, the power will be unstable. There might be occasional outages, dirty power, your refrigerator might blow up, more black outs but not as frequent as in the first month.

3. Some places will have more problems than others." (End quote.)

For those who've been trying to get a grip on the y2k power situation for the past couple of years, taken seperately, these two statements (as interesting as they are), are somehow "nothing new." But taken together, and considering they were made at approximately the same time in completely different contexts, they somehow seem more "definitive" (in a world completely muddled with, "No one knows"), and credible.

Actually, they almost seem like "the outspoken radical" and the "ultra conservative" agreeing that it looks like we're in for somewhere between two weeks and a month of serious power trouble. Rick has been at the forefront of y2k and power communications with the general public since 1997. John Koskinen (chairperson of the President's Council on Year 2000 Conversion - for anyone not familiar with him), has been highly "low key" since taking that job in February of last year, working hard to make sure no one panics over y2k.

So... Don't panic, but... You know.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), July 02, 1999.

slam dunk BB....thanks.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 02, 1999.

"Prepare for a three day storm! Prepare for a three day storm! PREPARE FOR A THREE DAY STORM!" (Horse goes galloping by.) The modern day "official" Paul Revere's cry on what to do to get ready for Y2K.

Last year in central America there was a three-day storm, it was called Hurricane Mitch. For the people who live in areas hit by that three day storm, their lives will never be what they were before that three day storm hit. Millions were temporarily dislocated or made permanently homeless. They were lucky, tens of thousands died from that three day storm.

Official statements from government officials described how their countries were set back FIFTY YEARS. This is due to enconomic and financial system disruptions, agricultural losses, industrial failures plus transport and utilities infrastructure damages.

Today there are still major problems as a result of that three day storm. Without massive food imports from countries not affected by that three day storm, much of the population would today be dead or dying from starvation. As rebuilding is going on, there are casualties from damaged structures and agricultural accidents. All from a three day storm.

IT IS NOT THE THREE DAY STORM THAT WILL CAUSE THE MOST CASUALTIES, IT"S GOING TO BE THE AFTERMATH! *THAT* is the *dirty little secret* about all of the official pronouncements on Y2K preparations.

Open your eyes and read the words hidden between the carefully crafted lines of the official statements on Y2K. Just like "cyber terrorism" is the official euphemism for "Y2K disruptions", "three day storm" is the buzzword for "long duration effects of Y2K".

Go ahead and try to get by on three days of canned soup if you want to. You'll likely be looking for cans of pet food to stay alive on before there is any government assistance available for you.

An old Weasel's militarily influenced viewpoint: A certain phrase used to describe how crunched for time we sometimes found ourself. For example, when asked if we could "make it in 2", we would respond "If hours were days".

Now apply that to Y2K. Let's see, three days equals seventy-two hours. If each hour was one day, then you might just have a really reasonable picture of what kind of Y2K troubles to look for.

Three days of events, maybe. Seventy-two days of repercussions, I'll bet on it.

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), July 02, 1999.

Hoff, if you believe that a three day power outage is the "absolute

worst case", you're being naively optimistic. Even Koskinen and the DC y2k director on 60 minutes stated three weeks as the worst case. A 3 day blackout ain't shit. I went through a major hurricane and we were out of power for 7 days.

If we were just computing the odds of the power industry having some kind of isolated problem, I may agree with that figure. But there are so many unknowns in the immediate future (y2k being only one of them) and the interconnections so many, we will be extremely lucky if parts of the country only experience a 3 day outage.

Absolute Worst Case = No power in our lifetime. 1 in 100 chance.

-- a (a@a.a), July 02, 1999.

"a" absolute, absolute worst case scenario: no fuzzy baby ducks in our lifetime. i know a true tragedy one i see one big boy

-- corrine (corrine@iwaynet.net), July 02, 1999.

This response is for BB:

You wrote that Mr. Grindley said:

"I did indeed make the statement that you attributed to me. John is using three weeks as the outside possibilty, but I think things could get ugly. I wouldn't give you any odds that nuclear power will be working by then. The feds have said they must be compliant by July 1, or shut down. It takes about 4 months to totally shut down a plant. Personally, I believe a serious concern is the cyber terrorism of the power grid. The department of defense is really concerned that this is being planned. This could last awhile under these conditions."

There are two blatant errors in this statement that would have led ME to believe that this guy didn't know what he was talking about.

First of all, the Feds NEVER said that the nuclear power plants needed to be compliant by July 1. They simply asked for reports of their readiness on that date. Secondly, it does NOT take 4 months for a nuclear power plant to shut down. I'm not asking that you take my word for this. Rick Cowles himself has said this. Mr. Grindley has NO business, IMHO, discussing Y2k when he doesn't have his facts straight.

I understand that you were only quoting the man, but had someone told ME what this man had said, I would have automatically dismissed everything else he said. He's obviously misinformed.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 02, 1999.

Well, here are some straight facts:

It is now July 2, 1999.

The electric utilities are not ready for 2000 in any sane, reasonable interpretation of the word "ready".

And what conclusions that we each draw is what makes us a polly, or a doomer, or whatever....

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 02, 1999.

Anita,

Both the NRC and NERC listed July 1st as the deadline for compliance. That is a fact.

You are right that it doesn't take four months to shut down a plant according to Cowles.

I don't know Mr. Grindley from Barney Fife but this is besides the information he received from Koskinen that three weeks without power is a possibility.

If everyone needs to be 100 percent accurate in everything they say about y2k, then everyone on this forum and anyone who has ever said anything on y2k would have to be dismissed....including you.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), July 03, 1999.

BB:

It WAS recommended...I'll grant you that. However, there was additional verbiage that included that if a plant were NOT ready that they should respond by July 1, 1999 stating exactly WHEN they would be ready.

Here's ONE source for that information. I'm sure I could provide you more if I chose to take the time.

just click here

Um...Rick Cowles acknowledges this one also.

Now...your post didn't refer to folks posting on a forum, but a congresscritter (as I recall.) Folks on a forum are indeed free to be incorrect, but if I were to quote my congresscritter, I'd like the information to be accurate.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 03, 1999.

Hi Anita,

Since when can any of us expect accurate information out of a congresscritter? We can't even believe Bennett or Horn's information. If you are waiting for them to tell the whole accurate truth don't hold your breath.

The point is ...that July 1st was a deadline. Let's give the congressman a break. I recall last year, that it was common knowledge that Nukes had to be ready by July 1st because it took six months to cool down properly. Remember that? It was only this year that Cowles revealed that that much time was unnecessary.

Again, the information that is relevant is that Koskinen said to this congressman we could be without power for three weeks ...not the 72 hours he has been telling the public.

-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), July 03, 1999.

Thanks for a kind response, BB. I'm REALLY not trying to drill this one into the ground, but feel compelled to correct misinformation when I see it.

You said:

"Since when can any of us expect accurate information out of a congresscritter? We can't even believe Bennett or Horn's information. If you are waiting for them to tell the whole accurate truth don't hold your breath."

This has been bantered around on Y2k fora since they've been around. I notice that folks who think more pessimistically use the Senate report as evidence of impending failure, yet at other times point to congresscritters as liars. The same thought holds true of Koskinen.

You then said: "The point is ...that July 1st was a deadline. Let's give the congressman a break. I recall last year, that it was common knowledge that Nukes had to be ready by July 1st because it took six months to cool down properly. Remember that? It was only this year that Cowles revealed that that much time was unnecessary."

It was never common knowledge that nukes had to be ready by July 1st because it took six months to cool down. It was misinformation spread last year. It was disputed at the time but few chose to believe the truth until Cowles said something.

You then said: "Again, the information that is relevant is that Koskinen said to this congressman we could be without power for three weeks ...not the 72 hours he has been telling the public."

My point here again is that I wouldn't trust this congressman to relate a correct story because he's already discredited himself in my mind. My personal opinion is that logistics make all the difference in the world regarding how long power could be out, or even how long it may take transportation methods to get replenishments to markets. 72 hours makes some sense in MY area, but I have a friend who lives in a remote area in New Mexico. Her electric company is sketchy at best now, and it's ALWAYS been hard to transport goods to her town. For these reasons, 3 weeks is WAY on the low side for her.

Thanks again, and I'm sorry I belabored this subject. Have a good holiday weekend.

-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), July 03, 1999.

"Utilities are scared," said Cameron Daley, chief operating officer of Framingham, Massachusetts-based Tava/R.W. Beck, which tested and upgraded systems for more than 100 U.S. utilities. "The whole grid won't collapse, but there will be outages that could last up to several weeks."

Being reluctant for legal reasons to guarantee uninterrupted power over the rollover is a far cry from an expert prediction of outages lasting up to several weeks. "Several weeks" in the northern hemisphere could mean (at least) hundreds of deaths, particularly in, say Washington, DC, if a severe winter storm occurs during the period. Similarly, "several weeks" in the southern hemisphere could mean deaths from heat, since it's summer down there at the rollover.

We do not know where these predicted outages will occur or how widespread they will be. In the recent past only relatively isolated outages have occurred, with help readily available from unaffected areas. The power companies have mutual aid agreements, whereby a certain number of workers from each company will converge to aid a stricken area. The severity of the outage(s) will depend upon the number of workers available to fix the problems.

Given such iffy circumstances, I would prefer to err on the side of caution.

Richard, politicians and business people have been playing fast and loose with the truth for decades in the US. There are still a few honorable MPs and Managing Directors left in the UK. The only honorable CEO I know of here is the fellow who owns the Polar Fleece plant, the one who was so kind and generous to his workers when the plant burned down. Generally--GENERALLY--speaking, the following is true: "Is Senator Babykisser lying?" Answer: "Are his lips moving?" There is strong evidence of a campaign to put a positive "spin" on Y2K and, sure enough, after the reports positive spin very obviously came into play. Frankly, I don't know what's going to happen--could be mild, could be harsh. But I'd much rather be safe than sorry.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 03, 1999.

the 3 day storm thing is brilliant.the average person will see the government acknowledge there could be problems.But,if three days is as bad as it can be,then there's really no need to worry or prepair.This could be viewed as natural selection and die-back is natural.It's just not pleasant.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 09, 1999.

What is the height and weight of R&B singer Anita Baker and Toni Braxton,

-- Mary Bassirou (marydavid@comcast.net), March 07, 2004.