My motives for asking

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

Since the question has risen (again and again) as to my motives for asking 'GI'-related Y2K questions on this forum, I feel compelled to answer.

I view the entire Y2K matter as scientific - it is my background and has not led me astray to date. There are scientists out there who disagree with my assessment of this situation (and others). That is fine - I am not wed to the idea emotionally, as some appear (on both sides of the issue). Scientists are used to people disagreeing with them, and testing an hypothesis is a vital part of discovery.

Since I am a 'Polly,' I would like to dispel fears about catastrophy - which I deem to be fear of fear itself. Most of the people who visit this forum are here to gather information about the seriousness of event (or non-event, as I've taken to calling it) and what they can do to prepare wisely. Therefore, when GIs rant and swear and condescend, they (you) strengthen my position considerably more than I could by merely stating the facts. Some have explained that this (ranting, swearing, condescension) is a response to my earlier inflammatory posts; to which I respond: 'Duh.' If you held my beliefs and motives, would not a similar strategy work for you? Think about it.

The questions are simple. They utilise simple terms. Some respond to them in depth; some rant; some complain about the questions. Please do whatever makes you happy. If you do not wish to read the questions, or if you vehemently disagree with all I say and for all I stand, I invite you to not click on threads which are clearly marked with this handle and email address. Complaints/suggestions in threads so marked that I act differently are and will be patently ignored.

Realise, however, that rants strengthen my position, at least in my opinion; and the opinions of people who email me with concerns. So, I say to the ranters, "Thank you;" and "Rant away."

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999

Answers

Ohhhhhhh..... so it's OK to make money off Y2K with a book if you're making fun of people, rather than warning them?

Distinctions, distinctions (this is my now-obligatory second line).

-- one-line-lisa (lisa@work.now), July 26, 1999.

Ah, now this is getting interesting. Are you perhaps another elias for 'Runway Cat' the author of a satirical pseudo-academic study of the type you seem to be proposing ? Game Time: The Bug That Failed

-- Ct Vronsky (Vronsky@anna.com), July 26, 1999.

Lisa,

Yes. Perfectly.

Ct Vronsky,

No. But I do utilise other aliases.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
Any taker's??? Andy Ray need's some "lab rat's" to do his study. We are obviously on a much lower evoloutionary scale and we need to be studied as the Cybernoid's we are.

Or maybe I don't get it.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), July 26, 1999.

Don't you think when your book comes out people will know who and where you are?

You should change your color from green to YELLOW to match the streak down your back!

COWARD!

-- Johnny (JLJTM@BELLSOUTH.NET), July 26, 1999.

What is the "exit strategy?"

I am observing a kind of awakening among the media and the populace at large. People are learning the truth about the extent of the Y2K computer issue, and are much less frightened than before. Many alarmist advocates have backed away from the "experts" predicting doomsday; and as several "mini-Y2K" dates have come and gone with little or no incident (certainly no noticable interruptions in basic human services), the truth about these catastrophic predictions becomes ever clear. One must applaud the courage of Peter de Jager who, after re-examining the issue, demonstrated intellectual integrity and courage by revising his position. The window of opportunity for such revision, however, is closing. In my studies of the reaction to the issue, I have collected thousands of quotes from people making fantastic and catastophic claims (in an effort begun 1 Jan 99). I plan to post these quotes on 3 Jan 00 on a website dedicated to giving pause to those who would practise fear-mongering in the future.

One sad possibility is thus: Some day we may face a real crisis; and the people who chose to cry "Wolf!" about Y2K may actually see it coming - who will ever listen to such people again? Add to that the possibility - perhaps the inevitability - that we shall one day face some moral consequence of our national or global choices, and one imagines a scenario whereby those who lost all credibility predicting catastrophic Y2K happenings are ignored when they are finally correct.

And so I marvel at the lack of a "back door" in this strategy.

I imagine people making the claim "If we had not caused such fear, the problem would not have been properly addressed" or some similar nonsense. It is reminiscent of the tactics of political regimes that history now frowns upon with utter disdain. I fear the same history awaits the doomsday claimants. The people who advocate doomsday scenarios thinly veil their predictions with phrases that suggest that they do not actually *wish* these events to occur, but that they merely *believe* they will occur. Their adamant arguments betray their Neo-Luddite motives. The snide arrogance displayed in responses to challenges wherewith they look down upon those who disagree - offering no arguments against the ever-clear facts of the matter, resorting instead to name-calling - speaks volumes.

Regards, Andy

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 25, 1999

-- (early@Andy.Ray), July 26, 1999.

I for one, though a GI, admire this guy. He is taking a position and risking something for it. He's obviously and intelligent and literate person. He knows there's a risk that if by some small chance the doomers are correct then this project will fail and he'll be red- faced or dead or whatever other doomer outcome. Risk-taking is the essence of our capitalistic society. What he does NOT realize is that only a small fraction of the population gives a shit about y2k one way or the other. In his own way he's as obsessed with it as any doomer. His book is being written for a narrow audience and won't lead to retirement on Maui for sure. You all may not realize, very few authors make serious money on books these days - only a few megastars. This is because nobody reads much anymore. Especially an inherently negative, backward looking, analytical book such as Andy has proposed. And it'll have a pretty simple message too: "Hey look at the goons! A few thousand people over-prepared for y2k@! Ha ha! And they were kinda right wing types too, better watch out mainstream America" (The publisher will lean on Andy Ray to make as many links to larger thems as possible, such as the internet and the rightwing Tim McVeigh fears of liberal mainstream America) Though Andy Ray may not see it, the publisher is smart enough to know that y2k retrospective, narrowly considered on its own terms, isn't enough to sell books. Good luck Andy Ray - scam us all good. We'll learn from it!

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), July 26, 1999.
Andy Ray:

Good luck, indeed. I hope the situation is such that allows the book to be successfully published....

I've "cried wolf" a few times before, and am now seeing the reaction of which you speak. No one in my family bothers to look at the difference between pessimistic worries of the past and significant preps currently. Oh, well.

Again, hope you are right. I've tried, I'm no author.

-- Jon Williamson (jwilliamson003@sprintmail.com), July 26, 1999.

Ct Vronsky,

You are correct in your assessment of the money people earn off books, and I do not plan to retire off profits from its sales. The nature of the book (what's written thus far, at least) is not as you have charactierised it. It is more a neutral examination of the politcal, social, economic, and technological factors involved in mass decision-making and public opinion; utilising the Y2K issue as the pertinent example. Since I view most political, social, and economic sciences as pseudo-science (I prefer 'touchy-feely' science that can be repeatably verified by independent experimentation), I view this as an opportunity to turn a critical 'outside' eye on these areas. This should prove valuable to practisioners fo what I consider pseudo-science.

You are correct in your assessments of the risks involved, for, if wrong, I will be the laughing-stock you (errantly) think I am attempting to make you. I believe the journey worth the risk, as it may spare people on both sides of the issue undue hardship and unnecessary emotional distress.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
Folks:

The Count is right. Most writers don't make a decent living at it -- a "best seller" is a book that sells 100,000 copies. Think about that. With a population of 250,000,000, only one person out of every couple thousand buys your book, and you're a "best seller".

As some of you know, I've got published books. Enough to know that our friend Andy Ray is spouting gibberish. ANYBODY can say they are "writing a book". But, publication is a good deal more complicated than that -- an entire process that begins with query letters, sample chapters, and finding a publisher that believes they can make a buck off your stuff. Plus, you need previous publication credits (not self-published credits, BTW) to prove you can produce. NOBODY gets an agent (a legit one, anyway) without having previously published. If Andy Ray was a published author, he'd be happy to share his name and particulars....after all, he's already in print, right?

Andy Ray's whole story reeks.

Anita Evangelista

-- Anita Evangelista (ale@townsqr.com), July 26, 1999.

Andy Ray comments

"I view the entire Y2K matter as scientific - it is my background"

HHHHMMMMMM That means little. It is quite clear that folks reactions are often emotional and that is not a scientific pursuit. It would seem to me that you are on the wrong forum for your interests. Right there you would be seemingly in error. As a person that has been watching Y2K for 18 months also, the problem is also in the humanist domain.

I would submit that your motives and your results will be suspect because your background and your questions aren't scientific in my mind.

This is not to say that you don't have a fair challange but many of the questions you have asked have been poorly thought out. If you are interested in scientific inquiry then the content of the questions should reflect that. If you are going to be toying with folks heads then you are not objective as you have placed a subjective view in your inquiry. This would mean a less than precise result in your inquiry.

So if you are into pulling peoples chains you have already failed.

And if you are really serious can you at least post your questions in a black font. Any idiot knows that black on white is much easier to read.

This is of course not a personal attack but an attack on your choice of colors for your font.

Of course some can write eloquently but can not read. Which is more important?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 26, 1999.

Brian,

Scroll up. (I realise you were probably typing when I posted the response before this, and hope others will realise that as well.)

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
"I view the entire Y2K matter as scientific". In case i missed it Andy Ray could you provide material supporting your scientific reasoning. Should help with the "Doomer Rants" provided it holds water.....

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.
Yes you are correct I typed out the comment above before you commented.

A little clearer. Not much.

Andy R mentioned

"I view this as an opportunity to turn a critical 'outside' eye on these areas."

You are not an outside eye, you have a bias. Error.

Now would you be kind enough to explain your font color?

Also you are to late. By the time the book gets on the market it will be redundant.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 26, 1999.

Fair enough answers from AR. However, my fundamental question remains unanswered (maybe I need to wait for the book ? Naah, I'll wait til the movie comes out...)

Anyway, my basic question is: do you really regard y2k "GI-ism" as a mass movement of any interesting sort ? Seems to me that most people are DGI's, for better or worse. So the book would be like reporting on a small cult. There have been many such books (cf. "Monkey on a Stick" about the Krishna cult for one of the most entertaining, but there are hundreds). But you (AR) seem to be suggesting that y2k is more than that ? Do you think millions of people are making SIGNIFICANT lifestyle changes on the basis of the handful of y2k loonies in opposition to the mega-buck-funded gov/org spinmeisters (or reponsible shepherds, as you like) ???

And in essence, my point is, if it ain't millions of people, it doesn't much matter. Read 'Monkey on a stick' instead. Also there area already classic essays about how cults react when predictions don't materialize - cf. the excellent recent book "Apocalypse Pretty Soon" for a full account. No big suprises - some drop out, the rest rationalize. So ?

Or, Ar, perhaps you are a "Type-II" Doomer: one who believes that there will be a kind of doom, brought on by precisely that handful of public y2k doomer loonies (really just North and esrtwhile Yourdon, and Milne) ? Then you want to assign blame publicly to them ? At least they have the guts to be publicly identifiable.

But anyway, I admire anybody who tries to write for the illiterate sheep that this nation's population has become (or always was, I don't know...)

-- Ct Vronsky (Vronsky@anna.com), July 26, 1999.

Anybody who wants to write a meaningful book on social attitudes and Y2k would not inject himself into the process the way Andy Ray admits to doing.

Andy Ray is Famous!

-- (who@is.AndyRay), July 26, 1999.

how is calling people "survivalist" impartial?that's not science,that's tabloid.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.

kevin,

I started these threads when Brian (who has not yet forgiven the resulting rebuff) expressed that there were many Y2K remediation experts at this forum: one chip and One system, with an example. The responses you can read for yourself. You may find it entertaining (as I did) to also view THANK YOU, Andy Ray (from a very helpful Doc), and You are very welcome, Doc. These detailed requests remain unrequited.

Which credentials and evidence would one have to offer to convince a 'GI' zealot of error regarding Y2K, do you think? My observations reveal none exists.

Brian,

I realise you draw personal pleasure from attempts to catch me in error, and I think I know why. you seem a well-spoken and (with the noted exception of our disagreeing veiwpoints regarding Y2K) reasonable. The pettiness belies emotion - to me and to readers who might otherwise gain from some of your insights on the matter. Your complaints are ignored - for reasons stated clearly at the top of this message - and will continue to be ignored. Hopefully, this example will also serve to answer queries about the simplicity of the language utilised in the questions.

Ct Vronsky,

Excellent questions, sir! Y2K is different because it is the first such incident involving a 'wired' or networked society. It is truly the first test of our readiness for mass communication - would you not agree? As such, it may (contrary to Brian's assessment) be of some unique interest in a post-event way.

I was a Type-II 'doomer" (your words, I have started utilising the term 'GI" in a largely ignored attempt at polity...). My views changed when I realised what you pointed out: Not enough people are following the advice of the catastrophic Y2K leadership. They ahve chosen to be publicly identifiable, and should/will be admired for such. I have chosen differently at this time.

who@is,

I have intentionally injected myself into the observations. I do not expect you to understand (or, perhaps, to wish to understand) the struggles that led to such a decision. I view it as a moral consequence of the nature of this scenario. It clearly violated my personal scientific goals to insert my 'Polly' views into the mix; bu the ethics of the situation warranted action; and that outweighed - though after a struggle - my scientific purity. All is explained clearly in the Preface of the work in progress, and has already been criticised by advance-readers as bait to critics of the conclusions drawn therein. It was an honest, though painful decision. I believe the average reader will comprehend the magnitudes involved.

zoobie,

Impartiality was sacrificed for moral reasons.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
Andy Ray -- 4 July 1999.

:) 'Tis true, I have posted on other message boards, and under different aliases. Some of the aliases are on your side. ;) Sometimes, one alias argues vehemently with another - that adds credibility to the "doomer" alias, and gets him or her "in."

link

-- (7@6.5), July 26, 1999.

I thought a "type two" doomer was a g.i. who refuses to deal with the violent and inhumane manner in which normal,moral,non-violent people can become violent selfish takers in times of crises.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.
Brian, the explanation for Andy Ray's use of fonts can be found in any modern psychology text:

"...the use of flashy colors and extra large printing is associated with both inferiority complexes and also delusional grandeur. Both can be related to abnormally small sex organs..."

-- Sigmund Freud (That'll@be.$150.00), July 26, 1999.

Andy Ray Wrote:

Brian,

"I realise you draw personal pleasure from attempts to catch me in error, and I think I know why. you seem a well-spoken and (with the noted exception of our disagreeing veiwpoints regarding Y2K) reasonable."

Why thank you :o)

"The pettiness belies emotion - to me and to readers who might otherwise gain from some of your insights on the matter."

Oh am I impressed!!! Your pettiness is ok and mine is uncalled for eh?

"Your complaints are ignored - for reasons stated clearly at the top of this message - and will continue to be ignored."

I am not flaming you Andy R. I am questioning your method. If you are as good as you think you are it should be no problem to answer. I enjoy clearity and insight. You should try and follow such a lead.

"Hopefully, this example will also serve to answer queries about the simplicity of the language utilised in the questions."

Of course this provides the answer. You can't handle it. So sorry to hear this. And I had hoped that you had a fine mind. This appears not to be the case. Shame.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

Oh and I should mention if you don't know who I am, I have lived in the Canadian North for 6 years some of the very things you have tried to understand have been in my lifestyle through choice. Living with nature is my interest and not Y2K as it were. Y2K will be a bump to me compared with some of the shit in my life.

Folks like yourself have no idea what it truly takes to live with little or no social infrustructure. So you try your little games with words and retoric trying to find the truth when actually the real truth is in the natural order and if the effects of Y2K turn to the worst case then all your little games will mean nothing to a single mother that has to deal with failure in a Arctic Storm during the rollover.

That is an issue which has to be dealt with. And im my mind it has not and one of the real reasons is because certian individuals are just to gutless to face the fact there is no answer out there and dodge the issue.

Write a book on that. Denial.

Words are cheap about not having a problem.

But I guess cheap words will mean a cheap book.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 26, 1999.

Just curious, Andy Ray, is your consistent use of green and a special font so you can identify your own comments visually and quickly on a printout in your book materials ?

PS I define a "Type I" doomer (or GI) as one focused on the actual breaking of systems; while a "Type II" is one who doesn't really believe the systems are likely to break significantly but who is worried about panic. E.g. I would classify Paul Davis (based on his recent comments about lack of police response post y2k)as a "Type II" Doomer (or GI).

-- Ct Vronsky (vronsky@anna.com), July 26, 1999.

Sigmund,

Teal is flashy? Really? This is an example of what I refer to as pseudo-science, for those who wondered what I meant earlier.

Brian,

Again with the assumptions.

Your frustrations are understood. But you act as though you are the only person to endure hardship - or one of the elite who do. Really. Maturity will take of that, perhaps, eventually. My pomposity bothers you - so? What would you have me do - apologise for your perceptions?

In truth, you have no idea who or where I am, and that fact seems to be gnawing away at you. I do not know what to say to bring you comfort. Honesty has not worked in the past, and, I detect, is not likely to now. I disagree with you, and I am not revealing any personal information, and that is the extent of it. If you cannot deal with that fact sufficiently, it is good that you live away from people; because people often disagree. And so, a bit of advice: get over it. This straining of gnats (having swallowed the catastrophic Y2K camel) and grabbing at psychological straws is, well, trite.

Ct Vronsky,

No. But allow me to applaud your thinking - it is contrasting and very refreshing to observe some logic in the flow of things just now.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
Andy Ray Wrote;

"In truth, you have no idea who or where I am, and that fact seems to be gnawing away at you."

No it is not your position in space it is your position on the forum that makes me wonder.

"I do not know what to say to bring you comfort. Honesty has not worked in the past, and, I detect, is not likely to now. I disagree with you, and I am not revealing any personal information, and that is the extent of it. If you cannot deal with that fact sufficiently, it is good that you live away from people;"

I said this? No, you are implying it. False, error. I live in my home community with family and friends. Lots of folk around me. How is it that wondering about you means that I should live away from people? Strange thought pattern there.

"because people often disagree. And so, a bit of advice: get over it. This straining of gnats (having swallowed the catastrophic Y2K camel) and grabbing at psychological straws is, well, trite."

Well that is what you are doing is "grabbing psychological straws".

I was mentioning single mothers that have to deal with failure in Arctic storms. And the failure of folks like yourself to come to grips with failure in society and to knock those that know such a thing can happen at any time doesn't help. Y2K just increases the risk.

So I would suggest you get over it and consider the weaker elements of society.

Oh and I am right so you are fighting a loseing battle there Andy Ray. There is no "disagreement" in a natural context. Failure is punishable by death. Nature ask nor gives "no quarter". Yet you avoid this arguement in your stance.

Failure in society means a quick introduction to natural order and the squirell stores nuts for the winter. Perfectly natural response.

People disagree and the internet is just the place to voice freedom of speech. Now I have not made any personal attacks agianst you so consider my input as freedom of speach. If you don't like it don't post here. Or do you have something about freedom of speach?

I actually enjoy bantering with you by the way. **VBG**

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 26, 1999.

Andy Ray mentioned

"My pomposity bothers you - so? What would you have me do - apologise for your perceptions?"

And where did I say that your pomposity bothers me?? Your silly questions bother me. And your choice of Font color.

By the way (Oxford Dictionary)

Pompous ; Showing self - importance, consequential, puffed up, (of language) inflated.

Well you are pompous, we agree on one thing I guess.

-- Brian (imager@home.com), July 26, 1999.

Brian,

I enjoy the verbal banter as well. The whining I could use less of, but it serves the purpose of defining the stronger argument to observers rather nicely, and so I tolerate it.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
Andy Ray i have to admit you make the case. Thanks for the links to posts i have missed. You haven't convinced me though because i feel there is sufficent cause for the embed problem. As for your Scientific Reasoning just remember.....they the Scientist of the time of Columbus. Told him he was foolish for he would sail off the end of the earth....... " keep an open mind " best regards

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), July 26, 1999.

kevin,

Your response is appreciated, but not nearly as much as your attitude. Your advice about scientists of Columbus' day is well- taken. Thank you.

Best Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 26, 1999.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ