Seagate 7200.11 High Failure Rate

#21 08-19-2008, 07:23 AM

On Aug 19, 4:58 am, "Tony" wrote:
> Again (and again) though, that there are so many buyers of these
> drives experiencing similar failures says something is up elsewhere.

True, but the fact that so many of them have been experienced by you
over and over again seems anomalous. I'm sure with other buyers, they
get one bad drive, have it replaced, and the next one works fine.

Yousuf Khan

#22 08-19-2008, 01:37 PM

"bbbl67" wrote in message
news:43d77492-6ae9-4e40-a2af-2a128e41628b@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 19, 4:58 am, "Tony" wrote:
>> Again (and again) though, that there are so many buyers of these
>> drives experiencing similar failures says something is up elsewhere.
>
> True, but the fact that so many of them have been experienced by you
> over and over again seems anomalous. I'm sure with other buyers, they
> get one bad drive, have it replaced, and the next one works fine.

No. That is not the case. Go read the reviews at NewEgg and see. MULTIPLE
drive failures are occurring (the replacements are failing), probably more
often than not!

Tony

#23 08-19-2008, 02:51 PM

Tony wrote:
> "bbbl67" wrote in message
> news:43d77492-6ae9-4e40-a2af-2a128e41628b@v57g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 19, 4:58 am, "Tony" wrote:
>>> Again (and again) though, that there are so many buyers of these
>>> drives experiencing similar failures says something is up elsewhere.
>>
>> True, but the fact that so many of them have been experienced by you
>> over and over again seems anomalous. I'm sure with other buyers, they
>> get one bad drive, have it replaced, and the next one works fine.
>
> No. That is not the case. Go read the reviews at NewEgg and see.
> MULTIPLE drive failures are occurring (the replacements are failing),
> probably more often than not!

Nothing like as many in a series as you are getting tho.

#24 08-21-2008, 12:11 AM

wrote in message
news:rvrh94hf451ggitqvhqj49b3b4fekifk15@4ax.com...
>I bought a 2.5" 160GB for my laptop.
> Had a problem. Ran Seatools, showed nothing, called Seagate.
> They couldn't figure it out, said drive must have a problem.
> Tried running Spinrite - it showed the drive making constant seek
> errors. Got a replacement. this one is making lots - not constant -
> seek errors. Seagate just blows it off and says we don't support
> anything but Seatools and it doesn't tell what the seek errors are. if
> it fails u have 5 years to replace it. I said - Ya, but that
> translates into a slow drive - he couldn't understand that so I gave
> up. SO seek errors are not important to Seagate.
>
> THEREFORE, Seagate sucks. Don't know if others are better - the orig
> drive had NO seek errors and one ECC.

I learned something this week about S.M.A.R.T. As well-meaning as "the
specification" may have been at it's conception, the way it is implemented
today is highly proprietary to individual manufacturers. It is very hard for
other parties (read, software developers of hard drive monitoring software)
to decipher the meaning of these values unless they figure it out some way
on their own. Drive manufactures HIDE their S.M.A.R.T. implementation
details. I too listed "seek errors" as one of the things I noted on failing
drives, but I got that info from a software program that didn't come from
the manufacturer. That program cannot assess the data across all drives
because they don't have the S.M.A.R.T. value meanings worked out. I tend to
believe that the "reallocated sector count" is valid (just a hunch), but
think that "seek errors" probably isn't, because I can watch on of my drives
accumulate seek errors as I watch the program, but the drive continues to
run fine (for over a year).

S.M.A.R.T. is a good start in theory only. In practice, being proprietarily
implemented by manufacturers, it sucks! I have read that S.M.A.R.T. can
detect or predict 70% of hard drive failures. But drive manufacturers don't
want anyone analyzing the operation of their drives so they HIDE their
implementation details of S.M.A.R.T. and what could be something of greater
value becomes a source of confusion.

The above posters concerns may very well be invalid then, but drive
manufacturers are, IMO, schmucks for not divulging or for purposely
obfuscating their S.M.A.R.T. implementations.

Tony

#25 08-21-2008, 03:08 AM

Tony wrote
> wrote

>> I bought a 2.5" 160GB for my laptop.
>> Had a problem. Ran Seatools, showed nothing, called Seagate.
>> They couldn't figure it out, said drive must have a problem.
>> Tried running Spinrite - it showed the drive making constant seek
>> errors. Got a replacement. this one is making lots - not constant -
>> seek errors. Seagate just blows it off and says we don't support
>> anything but Seatools and it doesn't tell what the seek errors are.
>> if it fails u have 5 years to replace it. I said - Ya, but that
>> translates into a slow drive - he couldn't understand that so I gave
>> up. SO seek errors are not important to Seagate.

>> THEREFORE, Seagate sucks. Don't know if others are better - the orig drive had NO seek errors and one ECC.

> I learned something this week about S.M.A.R.T.

No you didnt.

> As well-meaning as "the specification" may have been at it's conception, the way it is implemented today is highly
> proprietary to individual manufacturers.

Nope, only some bits of it are to some extent.

> It is very hard for other parties (read, software developers of hard drive monitoring software) to decipher the
> meaning of these values unless they figure it out some way on their own.

Wrong again.

> Drive manufactures HIDE their S.M.A.R.T. implementation details.

Not the stuff that matters they dont.

> I too listed "seek errors" as one of the things I noted on failing drives,

But didnt even notice that Seagates give the same result with drives that are fine.

> but I got that info from a software program that didn't come from the manufacturer. That program cannot assess the
> data across all drives
> because they don't have the S.M.A.R.T. value meanings worked out.

Wrong again.

> I tend to believe that the "reallocated sector count" is valid (just a hunch),

Taint anything like a hunch if you actually have a clue about what SMART is about.

> but think that "seek errors" probably isn't, because I can
> watch on of my drives accumulate seek errors as I watch the program, but the drive continues to run fine (for over a
> year).

So seek errors clearly dont mean what you assume they are.

> S.M.A.R.T. is a good start in theory only.

Wrong again.

> In practice, being proprietarily implemented by manufacturers, it sucks!

Wrong, as always.

> I have read that S.M.A.R.T. can detect or predict 70% of hard drive failures.

Just a number plucked out of some fool's arse. We can tell from the smell.

> But drive manufacturers don't want anyone analyzing the operation of
> their drives so they HIDE their implementation details of S.M.A.R.T.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

They wouldnt label a particular field reallocated sectors if thats what they were trying to do.

> and what could be something of greater value becomes a source of confusion.

Only to those who dont have a clue. You qualify.

> The above posters concerns may very well be invalid then, but drive manufacturers are, IMO, schmucks for not divulging
> or for purposely obfuscating their S.M.A.R.T. implementations.

Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

#26 08-21-2008, 04:49 AM

On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:59:42 -0500, "Tony" wrote:

>
drives.
>>
>> No offense but either something in your system is killing them or I am
>> calling
>> shennanigans on this one.
>
>Go read the NewEgg forums. I'm not the only one experiencing the high
>failure rate. I have put all kinds of SATA and PATA drives in my machine
>without a hitch. It's only the latest Seagate ones I'm getting that are
>failing. It doesn't matter whether they get attached to the RAID card or the
>motherboard SATA, they just go away quickly/immediately: the last one I
>received logged reallocated sectors IMMEDIATELY. Here are a FEW of
>MANY similar experiences with these drives logged recently at NewEgg:
>

Right now I'm running four Seagate 7200.? 320 GB models in my Antec
P180 case, with zero problems. But my digital photo library is
growing so fast that I thought I should upgrade one or two of the
drives to 1 TB.

I was all set to order two of the Seagate 7200.11 1 TB drives, UNTIL I
read those same reports. Now I won't.

To all the people blaming the OP for being problem, just spend some
time on the egghead site and read product reviews. Most are pretty
positive, or point out a few design flaws. It's rare that you read
about product _failure rates_.

The fact that so many people are reporting problems IS statistically
significant. What the cause is, I don't know and I suspect Seagate
engineers do know and are struggling to fix it.

In the meantime, I'm wondering if the Hitachi 1 TB drive would be a
good choice. $30 more than the Seagate, at newegg, but absolutely
worth it if the drive is solid and reliable.

-AH

#27 08-21-2008, 05:37 AM

Andrew Hamilton wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:59:42 -0500, "Tony" wrote:
>
>>
> drives.
>>>
>>> No offense but either something in your system is killing them or I
>>> am calling
>>> shennanigans on this one.
>>
>> Go read the NewEgg forums. I'm not the only one experiencing the high
>> failure rate. I have put all kinds of SATA and PATA drives in my
>> machine without a hitch. It's only the latest Seagate ones I'm
>> getting that are failing. It doesn't matter whether they get
>> attached to the RAID card or the motherboard SATA, they just go away
>> quickly/immediately: the last one I received logged reallocated
>> sectors IMMEDIATELY. Here are a FEW of
>> MANY similar experiences with these drives logged recently at NewEgg:
>>
>
> Right now I'm running four Seagate 7200.? 320 GB models in my Antec
> P180 case, with zero problems. But my digital photo library is
> growing so fast that I thought I should upgrade one or two of the
> drives to 1 TB.
>
> I was all set to order two of the Seagate 7200.11 1 TB drives, UNTIL I
> read those same reports. Now I won't.
>
> To all the people blaming the OP for being problem, just spend some
> time on the egghead site and read product reviews. Most are pretty
> positive, or point out a few design flaws. It's rare that you read
> about product _failure rates_.
>
> The fact that so many people are reporting problems IS statistically
> significant. What the cause is, I don't know and I suspect Seagate
> engineers do know and are struggling to fix it.
>
> In the meantime, I'm wondering if the Hitachi 1 TB drive would be a
> good choice. $30 more than the Seagate, at newegg, but absolutely
> worth it if the drive is solid and reliable.

I prefer Samsung myself.

#28 08-21-2008, 10:50 PM

"Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
news:moaqa4pqa0n5ponmii723kscmjn0dag25f@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:59:42 -0500, "Tony" wrote:
>
>>
> drives.
>>>
>>> No offense but either something in your system is killing them or I am
>>> calling
>>> shennanigans on this one.
>>
>>Go read the NewEgg forums. I'm not the only one experiencing the high
>>failure rate. I have put all kinds of SATA and PATA drives in my machine
>>without a hitch. It's only the latest Seagate ones I'm getting that are
>>failing. It doesn't matter whether they get attached to the RAID card or
>>the
>>motherboard SATA, they just go away quickly/immediately: the last one I
>>received logged reallocated sectors IMMEDIATELY. Here are a FEW of
>>MANY similar experiences with these drives logged recently at NewEgg:
>>
>
> Right now I'm running four Seagate 7200.? 320 GB models in my Antec
> P180 case, with zero problems. But my digital photo library is
> growing so fast that I thought I should upgrade one or two of the
> drives to 1 TB.
>
> I was all set to order two of the Seagate 7200.11 1 TB drives, UNTIL I
> read those same reports. Now I won't.
>
> To all the people blaming the OP for being problem, just spend some
> time on the egghead site and read product reviews. Most are pretty
> positive, or point out a few design flaws. It's rare that you read
> about product _failure rates_.

Not true. Upwards of 40% of the posts are negative (most of those "very
poor" rating because of failures/DOA) for the 320 GB 7200.11.

>
> The fact that so many people are reporting problems IS statistically
> significant. What the cause is, I don't know and I suspect Seagate
> engineers do know and are struggling to fix it.

I got notice today that they are sending me yet another 2 drives to replace
the most recent failures. They were supposed to contact me to find a better
solution but maybe the warranty replacement process happens separately from
the discussions that are had with the technicians.

Seagate has their own forum also, I found out yesterday. Failures of the 320
GB 7200.11 have been noted there also.

Tony

#29 08-21-2008, 10:53 PM

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
news:6h4i6kFj04noU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> How odd that almost no one else has got a result anything like yours.

MANY have/are having the same experience. See the forums (yes, Seagate's own
forum also).

Tony

#30 08-21-2008, 10:56 PM

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
news:6h4ijsFj2s99U1@mid.individual.net...
> Tony wrote
>> But drive manufacturers don't want anyone analyzing the operation of
>> their drives so they HIDE their implementation details of S.M.A.R.T.
>
> Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> They wouldnt label a particular field reallocated sectors if thats what
> they were trying to do.

Seagate publicly states on their website that they don't disclose details of
their implementation.

Tony

#31 08-21-2008, 11:22 PM

Tony wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> How odd that almost no one else has got a result anything like yours.

> MANY have/are having the same experience.

Nope, very few get anything like the result you have in a series of replacements also failing.

> See the forums (yes, Seagate's own forum also).

Did that long before you even showed up.

#32 08-21-2008, 11:24 PM

Tony wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Tony wrote

>>> But drive manufacturers don't want anyone analyzing the operation of
>>> their drives so they HIDE their implementation details of S.M.A.R.T.

>> Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.

>> They wouldnt label a particular field reallocated sectors if thats what they were trying to do.

> Seagate publicly states on their website that they don't disclose details of their implementation.

They dont need to do that when their drives have a field labelled reallocated sectors. Its obvious what that means.

#33 08-22-2008, 01:06 AM

Previously Tony wrote:

> "Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
> news:moaqa4pqa0n5ponmii723kscmjn0dag25f@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:59:42 -0500, "Tony" wrote:
>>
>>>
>> drives.
>>>>
>>>> No offense but either something in your system is killing them or I am
>>>> calling
>>>> shennanigans on this one.
>>>
>>>Go read the NewEgg forums. I'm not the only one experiencing the high
>>>failure rate. I have put all kinds of SATA and PATA drives in my machine
>>>without a hitch. It's only the latest Seagate ones I'm getting that are
>>>failing. It doesn't matter whether they get attached to the RAID card or
>>>the
>>>motherboard SATA, they just go away quickly/immediately: the last one I
>>>received logged reallocated sectors IMMEDIATELY. Here are a FEW of
>>>MANY similar experiences with these drives logged recently at NewEgg:
>>>
>>
>> Right now I'm running four Seagate 7200.? 320 GB models in my Antec
>> P180 case, with zero problems. But my digital photo library is
>> growing so fast that I thought I should upgrade one or two of the
>> drives to 1 TB.
>>
>> I was all set to order two of the Seagate 7200.11 1 TB drives, UNTIL I
>> read those same reports. Now I won't.
>>
>> To all the people blaming the OP for being problem, just spend some
>> time on the egghead site and read product reviews. Most are pretty
>> positive, or point out a few design flaws. It's rare that you read
>> about product _failure rates_.

> Not true. Upwards of 40% of the posts are negative (most of those "very
> poor" rating because of failures/DOA) for the 320 GB 7200.11.

>>
>> The fact that so many people are reporting problems IS statistically
>> significant. What the cause is, I don't know and I suspect Seagate
>> engineers do know and are struggling to fix it.

> I got notice today that they are sending me yet another 2 drives to replace
> the most recent failures. They were supposed to contact me to find a better
> solution but maybe the warranty replacement process happens separately from
> the discussions that are had with the technicians.

I think you will just have to cut your losses and move to a
different brand. My main reason for reading this group is to
get an impression of what is reliable at a particular time
and what is not. With margins being so low, it is not surprise
that the manufacturers are taking turns screwing up. In addition
there are those disks, that are reliable when handled carefully,
but have issues like heat sensitivity (older Maxtors come to
mind).

Currently Seagate is messes up, as thay moved a lot of manufacturing
to China. China has huge quality issues, because of cultural
issues. Quite a few manufacturing companies in other felds are
pulling out of China again because of that. Others had to
install their own, non-chinese, quality controll staff.
Unfortunately management is often just stupid and often
does not know when exactly to stop trying to cut costs, because
it starts to have serious negative impact on business. Come
to think of it, Seagate recently started offering data recovery
services. Looks to me at least part of the company knew
what manufacturing in China would actually do. Not that I see
anything malicious here, just incompetence and greed.

Arno

#34 08-22-2008, 01:10 AM

Previously Tony wrote:

> "Rod Speed" wrote in message
> news:6h4i6kFj04noU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> How odd that almost no one else has got a result anything like yours.

> MANY have/are having the same experience. See the forums (yes,
> Seagate's own forum also).

It is a bit like the IBM "Deatstars" 75GXP and 60GXP. Some here
are still denying that event took place, but it clearly did
and it was well visible in this group to anybody that was
wilign to listen.

And, yes, your perception seems pretty on the spot to me.
True, you have a very high failure rate, and I suspect there
is an additional problem somewhere in your setup or the
supply chain you are using, but the Seagate quality problem
looks very real and not only to you ane me.

Arno

#35 08-22-2008, 04:27 AM

"Arno Wagner" wrote in message
news:6h6vqaFji34kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Previously Tony wrote:
>
>> "Andrew Hamilton" wrote in message
>> news:moaqa4pqa0n5ponmii723kscmjn0dag25f@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:59:42 -0500, "Tony" wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>> drives.
>>>>>
>>>>> No offense but either something in your system is killing them or I am
>>>>> calling
>>>>> shennanigans on this one.
>>>>
>>>>Go read the NewEgg forums. I'm not the only one experiencing the high
>>>>failure rate. I have put all kinds of SATA and PATA drives in my machine
>>>>without a hitch. It's only the latest Seagate ones I'm getting that are
>>>>failing. It doesn't matter whether they get attached to the RAID card or
>>>>the
>>>>motherboard SATA, they just go away quickly/immediately: the last one I
>>>>received logged reallocated sectors IMMEDIATELY. Here are a FEW of
>>>>MANY similar experiences with these drives logged recently at NewEgg:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right now I'm running four Seagate 7200.? 320 GB models in my Antec
>>> P180 case, with zero problems. But my digital photo library is
>>> growing so fast that I thought I should upgrade one or two of the
>>> drives to 1 TB.
>>>
>>> I was all set to order two of the Seagate 7200.11 1 TB drives, UNTIL I
>>> read those same reports. Now I won't.
>>>
>>> To all the people blaming the OP for being problem, just spend some
>>> time on the egghead site and read product reviews. Most are pretty
>>> positive, or point out a few design flaws. It's rare that you read
>>> about product _failure rates_.
>
>> Not true. Upwards of 40% of the posts are negative (most of those "very
>> poor" rating because of failures/DOA) for the 320 GB 7200.11.
>
>>>
>>> The fact that so many people are reporting problems IS statistically
>>> significant. What the cause is, I don't know and I suspect Seagate
>>> engineers do know and are struggling to fix it.
>
>> I got notice today that they are sending me yet another 2 drives to
>> replace
>> the most recent failures. They were supposed to contact me to find a
>> better
>> solution but maybe the warranty replacement process happens separately
>> from
>> the discussions that are had with the technicians.
>
> I think you will just have to cut your losses and move to a
> different brand. My main reason for reading this group is to
> get an impression of what is reliable at a particular time
> and what is not. With margins being so low, it is not surprise
> that the manufacturers are taking turns screwing up. In addition
> there are those disks, that are reliable when handled carefully,
> but have issues like heat sensitivity (older Maxtors come to
> mind).

I know that. I use myself as a guinee pig.

>
> Currently Seagate is messes up, as thay moved a lot of manufacturing
> to China. China has huge quality issues, because of cultural
> issues. Quite a few manufacturing companies in other felds are
> pulling out of China again because of that. Others had to
> install their own, non-chinese, quality controll staff.
> Unfortunately management is often just stupid and often
> does not know when exactly to stop trying to cut costs, because
> it starts to have serious negative impact on business. Come
> to think of it, Seagate recently started offering data recovery
> services. Looks to me at least part of the company knew
> what manufacturing in China would actually do. Not that I see
> anything malicious here, just incompetence and greed.

I test as a consumer, I won't put one of Seagate's drive in any of my "white
boxes".

Tony

#36 08-22-2008, 04:30 AM

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
news:6h6pqmFj6l0uU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tony wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Tony wrote
>
>>>> But drive manufacturers don't want anyone analyzing the operation of
>>>> their drives so they HIDE their implementation details of S.M.A.R.T.
>
>>> Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
>
>>> They wouldnt label a particular field reallocated sectors if thats what
>>> they were trying to do.
>
>> Seagate publicly states on their website that they don't disclose details
>> of their implementation.
>
> They dont need to do that when their drives have a field labelled
> reallocated sectors. Its obvious what that means.

Seagate publicly states on their website that they don't disclose details of
their implementation.

I'm not a politician, You are though. I just build computers. You want to
politcize, run for president. (good riddance).

Tony

>
>

#37 08-22-2008, 04:30 AM

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
news:6h6pnuFjcjqvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tony wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>> How odd that almost no one else has got a result anything like yours.
>
>> MANY have/are having the same experience.
>
> Nope, very few get anything like the result you have in a series of
> replacements also failing.
>
>> See the forums (yes, Seagate's own forum also).
>
> Did that long before you even showed up.

Noted: you are DUMB.

>
>

#38 08-22-2008, 06:03 AM

Tony wrote:
> "Rod Speed" wrote in message
> news:6h6pnuFjcjqvU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Tony wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>> How odd that almost no one else has got a result anything like
>>>> yours.
>>
>>> MANY have/are having the same experience.
>>
>> Nope, very few get anything like the result you have in a series of
>> replacements also failing.
>>
>>> See the forums (yes, Seagate's own forum also).
>>
>> Did that long before you even showed up.
>
> Noted: you are DUMB.

Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.

Or even manage to grasp that you dont get a string of problems like you have seen without the problem being at your end.

#39 08-22-2008, 06:07 AM

Tony wrote:
> "Rod Speed" wrote in message
> news:6h6pqmFj6l0uU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Tony wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Tony wrote
>>
>>>>> But drive manufacturers don't want anyone analyzing the operation
>>>>> of their drives so they HIDE their implementation details of
>>>>> S.M.A.R.T.
>>
>>>> Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
>>
>>>> They wouldnt label a particular field reallocated sectors if thats
>>>> what they were trying to do.
>>
>>> Seagate publicly states on their website that they don't disclose
>>> details of their implementation.

>> They dont need to do that when their drives have a field labelled
>> reallocated sectors. Its obvious what that means.

> Seagate publicly states on their website that they don't disclose
> details of their implementation.

They dont need to do that when their drives have a field labelled
reallocated sectors. Its obvious what that means.

> I'm not a politician,

Yep, just another fool that doesnt have a clue.

> You are though.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

> I just build computers.

And are too stupid to be able to work out that you dont get a series
of failures like you have seen without the problem being at your end.

> You want to politcize, run for president.

There might just be a few more politicians than just the prez.

> (good riddance).

Your pathetic excuse for mindless bull**** in spades.

#40 08-22-2008, 06:12 AM

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
news:6h7h7lFji0biU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tony wrote:
>> "Rod Speed" wrote in message
>> news:6h6pnuFjcjqvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Tony wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>>> How odd that almost no one else has got a result anything like
>>>>> yours.
>>>
>>>> MANY have/are having the same experience.
>>>
>>> Nope, very few get anything like the result you have in a series of
>>> replacements also failing.
>>>
>>>> See the forums (yes, Seagate's own forum also).
>>>
>>> Did that long before you even showed up.
>>
>> Noted: you are DUMB.
>
> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> Or even manage to grasp that you dont get a string of problems like you
> have seen without the problem being at your end.
>

Bring it bitch, I'm in no mood to entertain you. Did I say get the **** out
of my face? I have no time for wankers like you. Go patter your pud,
dickweed. READ go rape your mom cuz I ain't putting up with your ****. Nuff
said. You and mommy need talk it out? Perhaps Dr. Phil?

(someone help this going-postal timebomb called rodspeed!)