Dear Linkmeister,

First, in response to complaints and in the interests of fostering some goodwill, I will attempt to use smaller and more well-known words.

Second, I have not concentrated on what will take place on 000101 as I have been busy "debunking" what I considered obvious flaws in the doomer position. So these are very tentative guesses, to which I give slightly more creedence than the illogical rants of hopeful doomers. I categorically state here, at the outset, that I believe most things will continue unaffected as they have in the past. There will be events, no doubt - wars and rumors of wars and the like - but by and large I expect the sum: Same things, different day.

Here is what I believe could happen next:

1. This post will be utilised by those who disagree to taunt, deride, and discredit the author.

2. The lights will remain on at the stroke of midnight 000101.

3. There will be hardware failures and software glitches beginning 000101 which will correspond in scope and effect to the statistical norm for any given day in the history of the computing age. These will nearly all be blamed upon Y2K, and later some of these reports will be ammended/recanted.

4. A large segment of the global population, having "played it safe," will have at their collective disposal more cash per capita than any post-60's generation. They, naturally relieved that nothing has occurred, will begin spending it.

5. The surge in demand will traverse the global economy, stabilising the yet-suffering Asiatic economies, and producing the largest peacetime economic "boom" in the history of the planet.

Reagrds, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999

Answers

Hey ole Andy's right about one thing, they'll have cash!

From a well known source that publishes mutual fund data:

Week Ending 6/30 Equities - Added 6.1 billion Taxables - Declined 260 million Money Mkts- Declined 23 BILLION! Municipals - Declined 119 million

Do the math here people. They took out a lot of cashola at the end of June. I will post this info again next week to see what has changed. To put it into perspective, the prev week saw Money Mkts add 898 million and the same week the previous year saw a drawdown of 2.9 billion. The 23 billion number seems to be quite the anomaly.

-- Al Mycash (getit@whileitstillthere.com), July 05, 1999.

Dear Andy Ray:

Your wishfull thinking is at least as large as your ego.

Andy Ray, have you ever thought of getting involved in politics by any chance? Or maybe economics is your future? Your solid analysis of y2k's impact upon the economy will surely induce Allan Greenspan to appoint you as his right hand man soon, real soon now.

Andy Ray, you are a joke.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), July 05, 1999.

Andy Ray, +1

-- treading litely (rs@marketwatch.com), July 05, 1999.

Greetings all! So glad to have my own computer up and running again. I see we have a few new pollys and a few have left (probably out shopping!). Are we feeding them or not?

Greetings, Andy Ray!

I have read a couple of your posts (haven't caught up on everything yet). To put it mildly you were condescending, taunting and deriding, so can you expect anything else back (#1)?

(2) The lights will be on at my house, they just may not be electric. Possibly they will still be on most places. I don't see big problems until we have depleted our oil reserves and other stockpiles. I don't necessarily feel there will be a big "bang" on the rollover, more like a steady slowdown over the month(s).

(3)True,failures and glitches, but upon what do you base "they will correspond to the statistical norm" ?

(4)HE HE HE Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. Everybody is already so far in debt and other countries are so far behind in loan payments. Where is all this cash going to come from?

(5)Assumes #4 which isn't possible. Surge in demand for what?

Regards, Sue

-- sue (deco100@aol.com), July 05, 1999.

Dear Sue,

Thank you for your insightful responses.

There was no need to apologise - if you have read some of my condescending and deriding remarks, you have doubtless read the remarks to which I was responding. In contrast, you appear to be a thinker who interprets the facts differently than I. Believe it or not, I would actually rather converse with you or someone like you than with those who agree with my position. I have no tolerance for idiocy: when dolts agree with me, it weakens my position in a debate; when they disagree with me, I usually ignore them (though I haven't in some recent instances).

I am happy to hear you have a system online again. Perhaps we can further discuss Y2K issues in the near future.

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.

Predictions, eh?

Andy Ray, as I noted previously, you said on the Debunking forum, 03-Jul-1999 at 22:40:25:

"I will cease my activity there [TB2000] as it is doing no good. I would rather share my experience in Y2K testing and studies into what I call 'cybernoia' with people of intelligence and similar experience."

Not so good at predictions yourself, are you? We've got another poster on this board who indicates he's quitting but never does. Any relation? You did post under an old thread of his on the DB board, by the way--odd that, since you dearly love to start new threads. Original Andy said he checked your ISP number (as displayed on Debunking) and it came back to northern Virginia. Is that where you met your friend? He lives in that very same area too.

As for passing for English, you've made a few mistakes. One is that you put the period inside the double quotation marks. English writers would have written "resistance". (See below for how Andy Ray made that mistake.) Similarlyl, you erroneously placed a comma inside quotes in your post beginning this thread ( "played it safe,"). You can't just throw in a couple of English words, as you did in your first post, like "kiosk" and "village" with a sprinkling of "ises" for "izes," it takes a knowledge you don't have.

I attempted the logical approach, and (to your knowing nods and sympathising groans) was met with what I will politely refer to as "resistance."

Just caught another mistake: "I was beginning to lose my temper some." Even after 32 years in this country, I still don't use "some" in that context--it's VERY American and feels very uncomfortable to a Brit.

By the way "creedence" and "ammended" are not British spellings, they are merely misspellings or typos. The former, I suspect.

Andy Ray is a blatant fraud and appalling hooligan.

-- Not Stupid Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), July 05, 1999.

Andy Ray

Well at least you can write.

I expect the lights to be on and a dial tone where I live. And can provide details. If you can be so kind as to back your optimisum as to why you think every area in the world will have no problem then you might be correct. But that will be impossible. So rather than just talk, how about some real hard data as apposed to just talk. Talking is really cheap.

I am sure that you are well aware that Intel considers failures in Asia to impact California just as bad as failures in the state itself.

And if you are REALLY good you can please inform us as to the alerts that have been put out by world organizations that failure is going to happen. And this includes John Koskinen, what do you know that he doesn't?

Failure to answer could make us post all the doom type stuff that is collected on the net.

 By the way we don't even need to expect that Y2K will bring the economy down.

Some of the Greatest Financial gurus expect it and Y2K is not even in the picture.

****frontline: the crash: will it happen again?

 

http://www.usia.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/ washfile/latest&f=99050401.glt&t=/products/washfile/ newsitem.shtml
04 May 1999

TRANSCRIPT: KOSKINEN REMARKS TO APEC Y2K SYMPOSIUM

MR. KOSKINEN: Good morning. I'm delighted to be able to use technology< br> to speak with all of you this morning as you gather at a very
important symposium.

Snip


And similarly, at the international level, we should also obviously
expect that we will have a large number, possibly, of what would be
manageable failures taken one at a time, which will overwhelm the
normal emergency response processes when they happen all at once. So,< br> in contingency planning and emergency response planning, we need to be< br> planning on an individual country basis and on a regional basis for
how the country and region will respond without necessarily relying
upon the normal international emergency response agencies being
available in light of all the possible demands that those agencies may< br> have.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999.

sorry about the html mess.

and I couldn't help but notice you spelt "Regards" wrong. Now this is to funny! Some humor. Are you trying to rib someone we know?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Or are you someone we know. :o)

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999.

andy ray

If you could detail your experiance in computers and Y2K remediation efforts I am sure that there are lots of Programmers on this board that would confirm or dispute your claims.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999.

Dear Brian,

Thank you for your posts. I am familiar with the information your link provided, and your sense of humor is appreciated as well!

:)

In response:

1. I use several aliases - all fictitious - to post in various forums on both sides of the issue. I have argued for Y2K catastrophy against other "me's," as it were (this helps get the "alarmist" aliases "in" - and I have been quite a dirty jerk about it too!). The aliases are generated by a rather simple bit of code that puts first names together to form a proper name, in a pseudo-random fashion, and then runs them through a popular web-based "people-finder" application. If it returns enough "hits" that point to different people, I utilise the alias.

2. I type in several distinct styles, dialects, and languages. It is difficult to keep them separate, at times; hence the aforementioned misspellings of a less-insightful post-er. (One grows accustomed to assumptions when attempting reason with deluded people...though the insults are tedious...)

3. I often utilise mistakes in teh text of a message so that my opponents will appear trivial by pointing them out, as a debate tactic. As a diversion, I sometimes do not respond to elements allowing opponents, desparate for personal information, down rabbit holes; viz. ponderings about nationality, skill sets, politics, IP's.

3. Therefore, I could be someone you know.

4. I mistyped "Regards," in my original post.

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.

Well Ken I mean Andy Ray :o)

Let us not confuse the fact that I can spell cause I can't. And you may be new here and maybe not. But you are going to have a problem "Regard" less because of your writing style is so much like a "previous" poster that you are going to get ribbed weather you are who you aren't or what ever.

By the way I spent alot of time yesterday looking for information that could provide me with peace of mind that the Chemical Industry has their act together and could find none. My sister and her family lives in the midst of alot of those plants. If you are any good you can find the information that I am looking for.

I am a Y2K Archivist if you don't know me and I know where the dirt is hid. If there is any good news then share it. Otherwise do your homework or you will be chaseing after "doomer" postings during your tenure here.

I feel I know you so well, gives me warm fuzzies **VBG**

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 05, 1999.

For those who are obviously going to assume (especially in an arena such as this), I am not Brian, though I do admire his style.

:)

Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.

Andy Ray, Incredibly you are more annoying than the real Andy. Please shut the fuck up, you're hurting my head. Sue did your husband blow his brains out yet, You're even more annoying than Piggy Squire.

-- Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts (jim1bets@worldnet.att.net), July 05, 1999.

1. This post will be utilised by those who disagree to taunt, deride, and discredit the author.

It sounds to me as if you're making a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you don't want to be flamed, don't bait.

2. The lights will remain on at the stroke of midnight 000101.

Where? Everywhere? Where you live? What about Germany? Russia? Virginia?

3. There will be hardware failures and software glitches beginning 000101 which will correspond in scope and effect to the statistical norm for any given day in the history of the computing age. These will nearly all be blamed upon Y2K, and later some of these reports will be ammended/recanted.

A very bold prediction on your part. No more failures and glitches on January 1, 2000 than the norm? Either you believe the world will be 100% remediated by December 31, 1999...or you believe there never would have been problems even if Y2K had not been addressed.

4. A large segment of the global population, having "played it safe," will have at their collective disposal more cash per capita than any post-60's generation. They, naturally relieved that nothing has occurred, will begin spending it.

Nothing will occur? Again, a bold prediction. Why did 160 nations meet at the UN recently concerning Y2K? Also, your comment assumes that cash is the only item individuals and businesses would stockpile worldwide. Fatter inventories in Q4 1999 would suggest fewer purchases in Q1 2000.

5. The surge in demand will traverse the global economy, stabilising the yet-suffering Asiatic economies, and producing the largest peacetime economic "boom" in the history of the planet.

If there were a surge in demand in, say, the United States or Britain, there is doubt as to whether Asia which is lagging in Y2K remediation would be able to meet all of that demand.

Andy Ray, compared to you, John Koskinen would be a doomer. The federal government carefully says that it expects no major national problems. That doesn't rule out minor problems happening nationwide basis, and it doesn't rule out major problems happening in scattered localities.

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 05, 1999.

Dear Jimmy Bagga Doughnuts,

It is better to engage in compelling discourse with people than to merely slap them around with foul language (which is indicative in debate of holding the weaker argument). You seem to agree more with my veiw of Y2K than with others in this forum, but your means of expression does nothing for your arguments. Also, it seems you're about to be reported to your ISP about this.

Cheers, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 05, 1999.

Andy Ray,

Read this...

http://www.afa.org/magazine/0799midnight.html

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), July 07, 1999.