for 29 January 1999. Updated every WEEKDAY.

My initial impression of the
so-called Y2K problem was
that it was an invention of
the Microsoft Spin Machine
and that Bill Gates would
unveil Y2K 99 in December to
"fix" the problem and make
even more cabbage. Then I
realized this was a flawed
theory since, knowing
Microsoft, its Y2K 99
launch would probably happen
in 2001.

One very overlooked aspect in
this media-saturated issue is
that, according to the
American Medical
Association's Y2K page
(www.ama-assn.org/not-mo
/y2k/solution.htm), many
computers that are tagged as
non-Y2K compliant will roll
over to 2000 if they are
merely left on. (Of course,
computer consultants don't
make any money off this
scenario.)

I tried the experiment with
a couple of older computers
in our office. If they were
turned off before the perceived
New Year's Eve 2000, they
woke up in 1980 (humming
"London Calling" by the
Clash, I suspect). If left on
for the stroke of that
fateful midnight, they
successfully made it to
2000 without glitches.

Such a piece of info would be
greatly detrimental to the
media's attempts to induce
panic and, generally, have
a no-brainer front-page
story for any slow day this
year.

Don't believe every piece of
the hype,
Tim Booktu

Somehow I suspect the problem
is a little more complicated
than that. Not that I have
the energy to find out.

Unfortunately, I cashed in my
no-brainer story a little
early on in the year. Got any
good back-up ideas that don't
involve Jewel?

Every day is a slow day
without a triple
latte,

Polly

Hit & Run

Every one of Drudge's Danny
Williams reports stated
emphatically and even
redundantly that the rumor
was unverified and that the
DNA results weren't in. It
would have been somewhat more
honest and accurate, wouldn't
you say, to have mentioned
this fact?

Tom Castle
<Tom@asizip.com>

No. We didn't say he reported
it inaccurately, only that he
made a fool of himself
following a nothing story.

I've noticed that the shorter
the email is, the longer your
reply is.

Sal Paradise
<impaler37@yahoo.com>

Impaler? Can we call you
Vlad? Is this a reference
meant to inspire desire in
the opposite sex? Is it a
coincidence that your email
concerns distinguishing
between short and long? And
you're telling us what you've
noticed? We've noticed you're
rather hung up on the
difference between longer and
shorter, you who refer to
yourself as "Paradise." We're
wondering about your
relationship with your
parents. We're wondering what
the number "37" signifies.
We're wondering what kind of
success you've had in your
dealings with the opposite
sex. We're wondering if you
have a full head of hair.
We're wondering if you
drive some kind of a foreign
sports car, most likely a
280ZX. We're wondering about
those Hawaiian shirts in your
closet, the ones you don't
wear very often since that
girl at the party called you
"Larry." We're wondering if
you knew she meant the cheesy
guy on Three's Company. We're
wondering if we're wrong
about you. We think we might
be. We're sorry. We've
noticed that the less
information we have, the more
assumptions we make.

Glass Houses

I'm pretty sure Ira Glass is
the antichrist Jerry Falwell
is looking for. You guys were
way prescient in awarding him
an EGG. There'll
be evil days next month
in Seattle when Glass comes
to town for a live
show/fundraiser.

Rick Roth @wolfenet.com

Ira Glass is the Alan Alda of
the '90s.

Feedback Loop

Hi Bartel:

In your column you say that,
generally, reader response
can be easily categorized
into four types: positive,
negative, insane, and milking
the conversation.

Well, I'd like to suggest
another method of categorization for
use when writing letters to
Suck, ordered by "Probability
of getting into the Fish"
from lowest (1) to highest (4):

Dear Suck:
1) You're dumb
2) Oh look at how smart you
are!
3) Look at how smart you
are. Hey: Look at me - I can
be smart too!
4) No really, you're *wicked*
smart. I'll just shut up now.

Since making the Fish is just
good clean fun for everyone,
and it's been determined that
(4) offers the highest
probability, allow me to close
by saying: No really, Bartel,
you're *wicked* smart. I'll
just shut up now.

A highly rigorous
scientific test was done,
complete with a control group
and everything, to determine
this ordering (just so you
know).

Tom Laramee
<tom.laramee@infoseek.com>

Tom,

Actually, the ones that have
the highest probability of
getting into the Fish tend to
be things like:

"I hate my stepmom does she
understand the way her lime
green pants suit gives me
epilepsie? I din't think so
and now she's at it again ...
should i be scared of carrot
cake, because i am. don't let
her know about this. please
Help."

Bartel

Dear Sucksters,

May I suggest that next time
you deploy the whuppin'-stick
of journalistic integrity,
which you ordinarily do so
well, you get your news from
somewhere other than the New
York Post. I was sorry to
read in today's Suck
("Feedback Loop," 12 January
1999) the following
sentence:

"Brill's Content queered
its own launch with a scandal
in which editors anonymously
posted Brillmania-inducing
bulletin board messages."

The biggest problem with this
sentence is that it's not
true. It's a bizarre, false
story that originated in a 10
June 1998 New York Post
article and, much like the
life-giving oil of Hanukah,
has lasted much longer that
anybody expected.

What really happened is this:
A week before our AOL site
went public (which means that
only people who worked here
were likely to know the site
even existed), some reporters
and editors posted such
Brillmania-inducing
propaganda as "Religion is
always a tough topic. Who
covers it well?" The posts
were not anonymous, either.
Brill's Content staffers
didn't always identify
themselves by title, but as
the site was not officially
open to the public, it didn't
really occur to anyone to do
so (once the site went live,
all staffers identified
themselves properly).

Suck is certainly not the
first media outlet to repeat
the bogus Post story, just
the first in a while; Salon
had you folks beat by about
six months. All that aside, I
think you guys are doing a
swell job.

Cheers,

Ari D. Voukydis
Online Manager, Brill's Content
<avoukydis@brillscontent.com>

Dear Ari,

Point taken. It's easy enough
to believe that Paul Tharp,
who wrote the Post story,
decided how the story was
going to read before starting
out, then called around for
quotes to back up his version
of events. Uncharitable
people might consider that
malice aforethought; but the
Post without malice would be
like Cap'n Crunch that
doesn't tear up the roof of
your mouth.

But in fairness to Mr. Tharp,
his story quotes Content
executive editor Amy
Bernstein as saying, "You're
absolutely right. We should
have identified ourselves,
and we will - from now on we
will be identifying
ourselves. It will be
absolutely clear that we are
Brill's Content staffers."
She also characterized the
posts as efforts to spark
conversation. Though
"Brillmania" may be a strong
word, this does constitute an
effort to generate buzz where
buzz was not a naturally
occurring phenomenon.

Steven Brill was quoted in
the same article as saying
the unidentified posts were
the result of a technical
glitch.

Unless you're saying Tharp
made up those quotes, there's
not much ground to say that
the story is "false." If you
are saying he made the quotes
up, that would seem to fall
into the area of
libel, which would be
worth an investigation by
Content, to say the least.

Anyway, even with the most
unfavorable interpretation of
events, the bulletin board
scandal would be pretty minor
stuff, and our article made
that clear. I don't think I
need to explain why everybody
was in a hurry to pass around
a Brill's
Content-with-its-pants-down
story. We included it as a
relevant example from recent
history, and we like
Content, even if everybody
else pretends not to.

Bartel