Quotably Quoted #31

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Soth Park/ Episode "Post Y2K!" Stan: "Man, that dilhole Kenny, I say we get'im. He told us this Y2K thing would be nothin'!!" Kyle: "yeah!! We haven't eaten in two days!! Even that fatass Cartman is losing wieght!!"

Cartman: "yeah...but I got somethin' for Kenny TAKE THIS!!!" (Cartman pulls out a gun, levels it at Kenny, pulls trigger *BANG!*

Stan: "OHMYGAWD! They killed Kenny!!"

Kyle: "YOU BAST...waitaminute!...Serves him right!!! Damned Polly!"

THE END

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasn@yahoo.com), October 12, 1999.

Memetic doomer hopes and dreams...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000

Answers

Andy Ray is obviously single.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), June 19, 2000.

And that status looks like it's not likely to change any time soon.

-- flora (***@__._), June 19, 2000.

wah.

wah.

wah.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), June 19, 2000.


I had forgotten about that one, Andy. Thanks. :)

Of course, it still doesn't top Milne telling me I'd be dead soon, or that the pollies in general would be drinking "piss from a hubcab" (I think I remember that one correctly) ... :)

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 19, 2000.


Uh, I thought it was 'dog piss'.

My fave rave was his 'unmitigated moron' schtick; & naming not one, but two of his pigs 'Flint'.

Good times...

-- flora (***@__._), June 19, 2000.



Now that I think about it...

doesn't 'drinking dog piss from a rusty hubcap' sound more like it? Or is this growing into a fish story?

Come on, Andy Ray, put those research skills to better use. There's some more entertainment in those hills than your stale #31.

-- flora (***@__._), June 19, 2000.


Yes, it was definitely dog piss from a rusty hubcap. It's just not the same without Paul's unique use of adjectives.

Of course my favorite will always be when Brad Sherman asks Paul when the Y2K troubles will really start. Paul's response:

You won't miss it bks. The telltale sign will be when you are shovelling lime, into the hastily dug and shallow grave of the corpses of your children.

It gets funnier every time I read it.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 19, 2000.


Stephen,

Good to hear from you. You have been working too hard, from the looks of the page and the pictures of the radio upgrade...Be careful in the heat, good sir.

I am fairly certain I have that infamous Milne quote in an upcoming Quotably Quoted, though I do not have the number handy. I pulled a few QQs out of the csy2k archives this weekend. They now number into the low 500s. I am considering posting them exclusively at my new eGroups site: Lie2k. But perhaps the folks here - especially the imposters and the increasingly fascist moderator - would appreciate it more if I continue here.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000.

Thanks hmmm.

Andy Ray, couldn't we skip ahead to 'The Greatest Hits'?

-- flora (***@__._), June 19, 2000.


Andy Ray,

Gimme a corter n ah'll call sumun what gives a shit.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 19, 2000.



As far as I am concerned, continue to post your "daily glimpses into the historical rhetoric of the debate"

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 09, 2000

Ten days.

That's longer than it takes most doomers to completely reverse themselves on any given topic (or run and hide behind an alias du jour...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray



-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 19, 2000.

Andy Ray,

I'm very curious about the concept you and others have referred to as a "meme." I have found this construct (Hypothesis? Theory?) as an explanation for group behavior to be rather weak. Since you have claimed to have some knowledge of the scientific process of discovery, perhaps you could explain to me how this concept could be proved false? How is it verifiable?

The "meme" concept appears to use the Medical Model of virus infection and transmission to explain the spread of core ideas through society. Is this correct?

Are you using this concept analogically, or is it your contention that people really do become "infected" through discoursive contact with others? If we extend this medical model further, do you consider those who have been "infected with the meme" to be responsible for their subsequent behavior?

This is at the heart of the issue I have with this concept. Are people who are ill with a transmittable disease "at fault" for becoming infected, or are they "victims"? If they are victims, then advocates of the concept of the "meme virus," and subsequent attacks on those who carry on the "meme," are akin to "blaming the victim", wouldn't you agree? Or perhaps you are implying a "willful vector," as some some have accused a few carriers of the AIDS virus, for example? This gets into some truly rocky territory.

How is such a victim "inoculated"? How would derision and ridicule serve your goals? One could argue that such tactic may serve to solidify the meme being attacked, rather than acting as a cure. This would not be considered good bed-side manner.

An alternative view: in the absence of true mental illness, people are generally held accountable for their own behavior. The "mind virus meme" construct is in direct opposition to this notion, if you apply the concept logically and to its deeper assumptions about human motivation and action. You could have as easily criticized y2k doomers as gullible, or stupid, or just plain frightened sheep, and your criticisms would carry weight (although petty and mean), but you chose the "meme" construct. Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.

Perhaps you should, for the sake of your Quotably Quoted arguments, drop the "meme" thingee.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000.


Wow, I have reached the Bigs. Andy Ray quoted me! Trouble is you quoted me incompletely so as to serve your own pathetic ends. I went on to suggest that you publish the TB2K stuff--they are of interest to some people, even me---but without adding your own editorial pap. But that's how you get off, isn't it bloke?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), June 20, 2000.

WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To The Capnfun Cafe And Island Resort!!!!!!!!!!!

Tonights news: Some fellow named Andy,a 50ish fellow after drinking far too many zombies(for his age) had a severe siezure.The only words the poor soul could mutter were "Y2K" and "Quotubly Quotud",medical experts brought in from the Mayo clinic said he was in fected by the "MEME".

We at the Capnfun Cafe apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused the partying public,but......Life does go on.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 20, 2000.


Spindoc,

May want to join this list......Memetics Discussion List

-- thoughts-are-things (worth@look.com), June 20, 2000.



reply NOT from Andy Ray

I'm very curious about the concept you and others have referred to as a "meme." I have found this construct (Hypothesis? Theory?) as an explanation for group behavior to be rather weak. Since you have claimed to have some knowledge of the scientific process of discovery, perhaps you could explain to me how this concept could be proved false? How is it verifiable?

The "meme" concept appears to use the Medical Model of virus infection and transmission to explain the spread of core ideas through society. Is this correct?

Partly true, yes there does indeed seem to be a similarity between physical viruses and some mental phenom. Anyone who "had" the Y2k meme can attest to the cycle. What is common, is in hindsight a victum is left wondering how they could have been so fooled, basically (although few will admit as much and yet more evidence something other than self was involved). To have been moved to do things they otherwise would have never done. With Y2k, you have many with a sense they were scammed. They have all the wonderful justifications and rationalizations for say, stocking-up their pantries, but likewise have a sense they were "taken for a ride". Lack of true honesty(and the reason for Andy Ray's efforts most likely), indicates one who does not want to face a deeper truth about self. Not a pleasant task facing the fact one was no better than to listen to the propaganda of a bunch of old fools in this case. Understanding the concept of a meme should inspire a few to do just this as it places the experience in a proper perspective of how-and-why an otherwise intelligent person could have been so wrong. Not just mistaken but really fooled. And the fact it was not just the average-joe, but many in positions who should have known better, should lend itself to seeking answers beyond just listening to bad info.

Besides,,,read these Quotable Quotes, do these seem to be the accurate reflections of people operating from their centers? Do these indicate to you people in control of their faculties? Are these postings reflective of responsible behavior? And worse yet, most of these went unanswered, accepted in some mass silent acknowledgement.

Are you using this concept analogically, or is it your contention that people really do become "infected" through discoursive contact with others? If we extend this medical model further, do you consider those who have been "infected with the meme" to be responsible for their subsequent behavior?

Well yes, one is ultimately responsible. If you believe that all is connected, all happens for a reason and one ultimately receives what they deserve, yes a meme victum(host) is responsible. Millennium Contagion infection hit those predisposed to a multitude of meme- complexes(beliefs).

Common was a belief that a seperation exists between those that "get it", and those who don't. A paranoia that one's life, society in general is out-of-control and just treading water before TSHTF. Truth is, this supposed condition has always been the way things have been. Reason many even notice now is many more things today actually run very well and stand as a stark contrast to the existing paradigm. Common also is the belief that what happens "out there" really amounts to a pile of anything compared to what goes on "inside" a person. This is done at a young age to make one a good consumer, good slave. What counts is YOU, not anything out-there. This notion of "out there", leads to being a good vector(host), to a multitude of mind-viruses.

This is at the heart of the issue I have with this concept. Are people who are ill with a transmittable disease "at fault" for becoming infected, or are they "victims"? If they are victims, then advocates of the concept of the "meme virus," and subsequent attacks on those who carry on the "meme," are akin to "blaming the victim", wouldn't you agree? Or perhaps you are implying a "willful vector," as some some have accused a few carriers of the AIDS virus, for example? This gets into some truly rocky territory.

"Willful vector"? you bet, the heart of the issue. Without a contempt for "the ways things are", few became a Y2k meme victum. To the degree(defining and measuring this is the work of the current memetic community, a daunting task)one had inherent distrust, paranoia and the like toward society(as they define it), to this degree were they in a position to be infected. Course it helped if one was online, a rather novice techie, or as we saw, a rather niche blinded, or severly out-dated full techie. Only a fool would believe most made any sort of intelligent decision edgewise as to the potential impact of Y2k on themselves and their families among the general population. The condition of infection to an MC is widespread, what mitigated this event was the lack of real internet use(most even online are just converted TV surfers looking for a quick jiggle), and a well crafted campaign to paint Y2k worry the work of extreme wackos, thus isolating the infection agent largely. Y2k was not the mp3 meme, it was not in the interest of most to spend time worrying about not having anything to eat.

The Millennium Contagion was a cyber event, almost exclusively. This alone should be some clue, something beyond a news story was at work here. One must learn to use this medium responsibly. To be a good cyber citizen and not run with every cock-and-bull story they come across. Not that this is any shield, as many doomer types claimed to have done the due-diligence, and still fell for what we now know was mostly a major pile of BS(public mobilization). Yet another indication something beyond what we normally think of as communication was at work.

How is such a victim "inoculated"? How would derision and ridicule serve your goals? One could argue that such tactic may serve to solidify the meme being attacked, rather than acting as a cure. This would not be considered good bed-side manner.

Correct, attacking the meme only strenghtens it. The whole "heat" between doomers and pollies shows this completely. Any attempt, even by a Hoffmeister type approach, was met by the Meme exactly like a virus does in the body,,,it was opposed, parts compatible to the life of the virus were absorbed, and the good-newsbearer was tarred and feathered and shown the door(or outright censored). Information which directly would help a person understand, was rejected by same, and many claim this meme stuff is nonsense? In hindsight, what would you call this that was at work here? How was something as ridiculous as Y2k, and shown completely to be now, so dam important less than a year ago to many? Were these people just mistaken? about something so badly they look the part of complete idiots today? Why isn't the multitude of computer issues facing many today of interest to all the supposed "computer-researchers" that were running around last year "sounding the Y2k alarms"? Truth is, few of the normal everyday issues have a memetic component like the MC did.

One is innoculated by education. One must learn to check sources. The fact Y2k was spread by none-other than a one Gary North alone does not indicate a very deep checking of sources is going on. Sadly most only move when presented with a carrot. One has to spread the idea that being responsible benefits self. Unfortunately this is not a very popular concept living in a society full of post-hippies types and their gen-x offspring. The real successes around do not buy into the "do your own thing" crap and this has to become common knowledge. If the trend continues, we are going to need yet more jails and laws to keep the morons in check from all their irresponsible behavior they like to call "their" Freedom. Easy equation=profitable to have a society of needfull, out of center, people who have been educated away from their inherent common-sense they were born with. Most do not buy the memetic model as all they are in total is a multitude of memes. They simply do not "get it", cause they have "lost it" and worse, do not like being reminder of this.

An alternative view: in the absence of true mental illness, people are generally held accountable for their own behavior. The "mind virus meme" construct is in direct opposition to this notion, if you apply the concept logically and to its deeper assumptions about human motivation and action. You could have as easily criticized y2k doomers as gullible, or stupid, or just plain frightened sheep, and your criticisms would carry weight (although petty and mean), but you chose the "meme" construct. Make up your mind. You cannot have it both ways.

I think you answered your own question. How was it possible for many intelligent(supposedly)folks to have acted so childish? Even the preparedness deal is largely crapola. Not one of these spewers of responsibily actually believes they can somehow, "disconnect from society". This jibber is a cover, a rationalization to somehow put a square-peg in a round-hole. Fact Y2k work to fix issues was pooh- poohed, ridculed and twisted to indicate otherwise alone should be one's clue to the stupidity(meme-infection) of the "preparedness hucksters and co". One would have expected news of Y2k progress in industry to have been meet with a *sigh* of relief by the preparers, was it?

The meme concept brings understanding to a rather ridiculous event. Stupid things happen every moment, Y2k was not the work of a bunch of mental zeros. Digit issues in some computer systems ARE real, 25 years ago, and years into the future, nothing NEW here, nature of computing. Y2k was not really about these issues, it was about people and the way they view the world. The MC gave some prone, a neat package to do what ultimately caused their susceptibility in the first place, avoiding the job of getting-on with getting- on.

Perhaps you should, for the sake of your Quotably Quoted arguments, drop the "meme" thingee.

You have my vote if Andy will not(at some point), provide more in depth information than old quotes from the past,,,that "point" was passed back at say,,,#12 or so.

-- Spindoc' (spindoc_99_2000@yahoo.com), June 20, 2000.



-- thoughts-are-things (worth@look.com), June 20, 2000.


additional thoughts,,,,

Polly types have to deal with the issues of why they too were infected. Many Pollies were doomers and changed, softened, as the socalled "work" showed a growing condition the Y2k issues were being handled. Sounds all peachy-keno until one understands this justification is just that, a justification for believing prior that indeed we faced a potentially serious condition because of y2k bugs.

Truth is, Y2k was a dead-duck from virtually inception. Did the "work" matter? sure to some, nobody is debating this and few would even argue the Noise even mattered in nudging the laggards into action. Truth is, MOST did nothing, MOST fixed on failure as they have been doing for many decades(and are right this minute). Most have done nothing since actual Y2k risk never existed in the first place. This is all lost in the NOISE of Y2k. Y2k was rare. Even in the most knowledgable pessimistic opinion, less than 2% of even supposed embedded systems even use any dates. Fractions of these in the single-digit range had Y2k issues than required attention, and did. Y2k was not this massive problem, far from it.

The fact we have not one single solidary Show Stopper, indicates beyond ANY doubt, Y2k was largely baloney as it was known. We do not even have anything which really impacted a single company in any significant way do we? Talking business survival here of any company of size. If Y2k was this big monster, we should have plenty of examples to point to, where are they?????? even a single one?

Truth is, Y2k was never about the work, the progress, and changing one's "opinion" as the wind died down. The fact one EVER really bought the Y2k story is indication one was infected. The labels merely indicated states of infection. Y2k never posed the threat advertised because the very conditions present do not lend themselves to an interconnected doomsday scenario. It ain't all that connected, or working in some machine-like fashion.

Pollies bought it(Y2k the issue), were infected just as much as the doomers were. Y2k(Millennium Contagion)was not choosy. Just as a good doomer will justify their actions, so too is seen the Pollie type who had-it-all figured out. This is likewise BS as reality is showing this analysis was self-evident once one steps back and drops the need to extrucate oneself from actually believing the impossible prior.

-- thoughts-are-things (worth@look.com), June 20, 2000.


The POWER OF THE MEME is strong within you, young Andywalker. Unfortunately, your personal MEME makes you look like a petty little asshole.

-- (Obi-Wan@Tarragon.Five), June 20, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ