Still awaiting the list, madam...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000

Answers

...and we want it NOW! NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW! Or we're gonna... we're gonna... (Psst, Andy, what ARE we gonna do?)

-- Andy Ray's Attourney (Whine@Whine.Whine), June 20, 2000.

It hasn't been proven yet that OTFR shared IP info. In the US, "Andy Ray," one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I'm willing to look at any evidence you might have.

-- Open (minded@but.skeptical), June 20, 2000.

OTFR? OTFR? Is it time to dust off the MIT email list?

Whining Doomer (the whining doomer that posted above - not all the rest), this link's for you...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

"Whining"? Is the pot speaking to the kettle?

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

OTFR? OTFR? Is it time to dust off the MIT email list?

What MIT email list? You mean the one Phil Greenspun was referring to when he wrote this. . .

Imagine the president of MIT getting email from someone on the Internet, complaining about Philip Greenspun. The poor guy (a) has no idea that the Y2K forum exists, (b) doesn't understand the connection between the greenspun.com service and MIT (in fact there is hardly any; the box sits inside a machine room at MIT but that's about it; MIT does not endorse or care about the service), (c) doesn't really know who I am (so he has to go look me up).

So far all you have provided is an accusation with no supporting evidence. All we have seen is the so-called "friend of a friend of an anonymous source" report which carries just as much weight now as when we saw them pre-rollover. Are you seriously going to give any weight to an anonymous source with no supporting evidence?? Do you realize what this makes you?? Here's a hint: it rhymes with "cream- affected boomer"

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 20, 2000.

hmmm,

Yes, that's the list.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

Positively cracked me up when the dude referred to the complaining doomer(s) as 'not very stable individual(s)'. I think it was in the same reply above way back when......

God, those were the days when the comedy just spewed all over this place.......at least 10 belly-laughers a day popped up on here. Really funny party was most of them were attempting to be serious... YIKES!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 20, 2000.

Andy:

The fact that someone sent a letter stating they might file a lawsuit means absolutely nothing. Please come back with the actual case law involved with this-you know, citations so that we can read what the judge/jury decided. Thanks.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), June 20, 2000.

Just for Deano:

copy of Phil's reply to the doomzies-

: "Y2K is a fun paranoia but folks who use the greenspun.com seem to be unable to grasp a few simple facts:

: 0) while they were bitching and moaning, it was me who was up until 4:00 am last night reconfiguring the server to handle more load

: 1) the poor computer can't support the load, plain and simple. If I turned it back on right now (without first spending a couple of days reprogramming, adding more resources, etc.), it would just crash within a few minutes.

: 2) I'm not asking for one dime from Y2K forum users; all the donated money goes directly to SARA Sanctuary (a no-kill animal shelter in Seguin, Texas).

: 3) To make the forum sustainably fast requires about $25,000 of computer hardware, system administration, and database administration effort plus at least $2,000/month in ongoing support (e.g., to shut out robots when they crop up). The software that sits behind the Y2K forum is very similar to what a big company like ebay.com or amazon.com would run (includes an Oracle database and the whole thing is architected for good user experience rather than server efficiency). My conjecture was that the people who use the Y2K forum wouldn't be willing to donate even a tiny fraction of that to charity. To test my theory, I established a little donation program. I was surprised to see that about $2,000 was donated to SARA. This is still a tiny fraction of the total cost but I guess it is enough that I don't feel stupid for having spent so much time and personal money supporting a forum in which I have no interest.

: 4) The user community of the Y2K forum contains a remarkably high percentage of aggressive and mentally disturbed individuals. Over the past two years these people regularly send email to senior MIT administration officials complaining about their treatment from other Y2K forum users. Imagine the president of MIT getting email from someone on the Internet, complaining about Philip Greenspun. The poor guy (a) has no idea that the Y2K forum exists, (b) doesn't understand the connection between the greenspun.com service and MIT (in fact there is hardly any; the box sits inside a machine room at MIT but that's about it; MIT does not endorse or care about the service), (c) doesn't really know who I am (so he has to go look me up). The temptation at these times is simply to delete the entire forum and its 300,000 messages from the system (would take me, as server administrator, one mouse click or one Oracle statement).

: 5) The Y2K forum, unlike any other forum on greenspun.com, is a place where people use fake email addresses. This generates lots of server load (handling bounced mail), complaints from domain owners worldwide (sometimes there is a real "foo@bar.com" and they get pissed off), and complaints from the real people whose name has been forged. This generates lots of ill-will from Internet people against me.

: Bottom line is that I could pull the plug on the greenspun.com box, an experiment that was set up in 1995 to see if we could do something interesting for other Web publishers (succeeded except that the nasty users on the Y2K forum made us wish we hadn't done it). By pulling the plug on the server and throwing the old machine out, I would be able to free up time to teach an extra 100 students per year, to write a new edition of any of my books, to make an extra $50,000 per year developing software. None of you guys would give up $50,000 per year for the Y2K forum yet you have no qualms asking me to do so, even though I've no interest in the topic.

: So encourage all of your Y2K friends to keep on writing to me telling me what a bad person I am for asking you to donate $25 to an animal charity. It might tip the scales in favor of just pulling the server's power cord and moving on to something more fun..."

My favorite is #4!

ENJOY!

-- Archivist (maintaining@the.archives), June 20, 2000.

THAT'S IT!!!! I almost had it right........ At 40 years, the ol' memory ain't what it used to be.

"The user community of the Y2K forum contains a remarkably high percentage of aggressive and mentally disturbed individuals."

I agree, #4 wins hands down!!! I reckon the reason this cracked me up so much was the fact that I was called many, MANY names by the nastiest of doomers. And this said it all for me......

I thank you Archiver!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 20, 2000.

: 4) The user community of the Y2K forum contains a remarkably high percentage of aggressive and mentally disturbed individuals. Over the past two years these people regularly send email to senior MIT administration officials complaining about their treatment from other Y2K forum users.

Somehow I doubt 'doomers' would have been complaining to MIT about their treatment by other 'doomers.' Much more likely is that 'pollys' were complaining to MIT about their treatment by 'doomers.'

-- (think@about.it), June 20, 2000.

think

The old TB2K forum was founded by a doomer and run by doomers from beginning to end.

I doubt very seriously that a pollie ever called or wrote to MIT to complain about the goings on here (remember, we were here for entertainment purposes only - why would we want to ruin that?). It was obvious that the hard-core doomers really didn't have a firm grasp on reality.

Even you can see that........can't you??

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 20, 2000.

Deano, I think you're missing it. I was going to refer to a thread that contained whining by someone who thinks they've been horribly mistreated -- until I realized it was this thread. This forum is like any other: You fit in (even if you ruffle a few feathers along the way), you fight (as some of the "polly" persuasion very ably did), or you leave and don't look back. Considering this was considered primarily a "doomer" forum, why on earth would those of a similar mindset complain to TPTB to have the virtual rug pulled out from under them?

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 20, 2000.

If memory serves...supposedly, there were complaints to MIT from both sides of the fence. One or a few pollies complained about censorship. Some doomers complained about pollies and asked for ways to keep them out. Doomers also complained big time about the server being shut down, which the quote from P. Greenspun in this thread is referring to.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), June 20, 2000.

I disagree.

If you were here back then, then you should know. Doomers did not handle good news (lies in their eyes) well at all. Basically, they kicked and screamed all the way to Phil to make it stop. I don't know of any pollie that ever went that rout, while several doomers threatened it all the time. That's a fact.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 20, 2000.

Deano maybe you should get checked for Alzheimers. This is only one of several threads where a writing campaign to MIT was discussed by your buddies.

http://stand77.com/wwwboard/ar35.html

Not the president, but a good starting place... - Andy Ray 06:43:14 01/03/00 (0)

The president of MIT HAS to have some idea this is going on. And, if s/he doesn't, s/he will when I call/e-mail on Tuesday. - Ladylogic 13:26:55 01/02/00 (3)

Re: The president of MIT HAS to have some idea this is going on. And, if s/he doesn't, s/he will when I call/e-mail on Tuesday. - Doc Paulie 14:05:18 01/02/00 (2)

Simple answer - Paul Davis 15:24:51 01/02/00 (1)

Paul, Ed is a SYSOP! (Thread posted below.) N/T - Ladylogic 16:40:22 01/02/00 (0)

Show of hands - Doc Paulie 13:06:29 01/02/00 (4)

My dealings with Phil Greenspun (Andy knows what I mean) - Billy the Koder 14:05:31 01/02/00 (3)

Same treatment I had, how special - Doc Paulie 14:13:11 01/02/00 (2)

My friend, it's all about the mighty $$$. (Remember, all I offer is the truth) - Billy the Koder 14:24:19 01/02/00 (1)

I'm speechless (it's a first). - Patricia 15:23:53 01/02/00 (0)

-- anti-revisionism (keepthe@record.straight), June 20, 2000.

I'm sorry, I didn't even address your question as to why someone would want to pull the rug from under themselves.

Simple. They were not very bright individuals to begin with and they have a serious problem with reality outside the internet. Clear now?

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 20, 2000.

If I were one to hang out over there I might have seen that. But, contrary to popular belief, I was not a regular by any means on that forum so I missed it (go search your little heart out and see for yourself). My apologies.

I still think that Phil is referring to the 'regulars' on the old TB2K forum in the post above though.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 20, 2000.

Buddy;

You're absolutely correct (if my memory serves correctly). But you implied it yourself: Some people complained about content, while some complained about availability. Phil solved both problems by saying that (1) if people would cough up enough money, they could afford better servers, and (2) content is left up to the administrators and those with The Magic Key.

Deano;

I may be brain-dead, but not that brain-dead.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), June 20, 2000.

So, is OTFR a no-show, or merely cowering behind yet another alias?

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

...or perhaps is she practising that "right to be silent?"

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

It would appear that OTFR resides in the same place as your evidence.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 20, 2000.

Andy-

You complain about not getting and answer from OTFR, yet you have not presented the evidence I requested. Do what I say not what I do?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), June 20, 2000.

hmmm,

I understand that poker is a popular game in America, and even more popular is the tendency bluff or engage in calling one's bluff.

In most of the world, however, this is not the case.

Non-western cultures (mine included) debate most comfortably from the position of being underestimated by one's opponent. This way, one feels (or at least I feel) less guilt about allowing my opponent in a debate to earn the scorn I am capable of heaping upon them. One can also, when one's opponent has conducted themselves honorably and with intellectual integrity, choose to gently offer corrective counterpoint.

As for the card game or poker, I enjoy it and usually win, for I always hold a better hand than my opponent believes.

So, by all means, keep pushing, twit. You may realise (though too late for any correction) that you're as correct about your assumptions in this matter as you were in your assumptions about Y2k...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

AR,

Why do you feel OTFR is obligated to answer you, or anyone else for that matter? You aren't obligated to answer *me*, so why should it be different between you and OTFR?

Waiting out the ~299,965 posts to go,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 20, 2000.

Dear fs,

You didn't say the magic word.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

Andy Ray, as I was walking in the park this morning I saw a man standing in a grassy area, shaking his fist at the sky and shouting. I stopped long enough to listen and hear what he was shouting:

"Come on out here, Satan! I've had just about enough of your nasty tricks against me and I'm calling you out. Right now, ye'hear? I demand an apology and I'm gonna get one, you big coward.

"Still won't show your face, huh? Whatsa matter? Afraid of me, Beelzebub? Lord of Darkness! Father of Lies! I'll fight you and any twenty of your little buddies: Melkarth, Mammon, the whole rotten stinkin' crew!

"I've got proof you've been implanting computer chips in my forehead while I'm asleep. I've got a lawyer and we're coming after you. So there!"

After this, he turned around and looked in all directions for about two minutes with his hands on his hips and his elbows defiantly stuck out. Then he dusted his hands together and strode off with a look of complete satisfaction with himself, every inch the conqueror.

Read any good books lately?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 20, 2000.

frank,

She can choose whether to continue to cower behind other alises if she desires. It's her move, at this point. I will act in my interests, and actually in yours, too. For I do not wish to know your IP data, nor do I wish to have someone who disagrees with you or your methods of communication on a board that exists in a room being supplied in-part of electricity by public funds sharing your IP and data obtained without your consent (or even knowledge) with others - needless to say with others who disagree with you.

This is an abuse of power (fascism) and an invasion of privacy.

I do not wish to see it happen to you any more than to myself. I may disagree with you, but that does not give me the right to collect private data from you or your computer without your consent and share it with others.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

Lian,

It's always about YOU, isn't it?

YOU were walking in the park...YOU saw someone exercising their right to human expression (like a good doomer, you should have collected as much informatin by stealth as possible about the individual, located his opponents, and shared it with them)...YOU, YOU, YOU.

Did you recognise this fellow from the dried food store? Poor bloke, probably another doomer that went over the edge when his meme died...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

Please.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), June 20, 2000.

Is Chuck Vest still the president of MIT?

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

AR,

Maybe I should back up a step, I've been pretty busy lately.

Has OTFR been PROVEN to have shared IPs with people (other than say giving Hawk ***example only*** the IP of someone using Hawk's handle)?

Do you have PROOF that OTFR is "hiding behind other aliases" and continuing to post on this forum, and just isn't on vacation or some such?

Thanks in advance for the clarification, I may end up siding with you yet. (Not that I believe that should affect you in any way ;-) )

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 20, 2000.

This is rich.

First we get Andy Ray telling us how much more dangerous he is than he appears to be, because he likes to conceal his true strength. It is a clever tactic, you see. Like Nixon reassuring the world, "I'm not a crook", now we get Andy Ray boasting, "I'm not as stupid as I look."

Then we get Andy Ray trying to seize the moral high ground by citing the publically-funded electricity used by the Greenspun server and reassuring us all that his blustering and whining is really all for our own good.

Lastly, I followed the link Andy Ray provided near the top of this thread. It led to a CNN news story about privacy on the web. It turns out that Michigan's attorney general wants to prosecute some web sites for violation of privacy. But the violations cited in the story are completely inapplicable to what Andy Ray alleges OTFR did.

So, Andy Ray, keep it up. Your words and actions thus far have been wholly worthy of you. More, please. Don't stop. Your killing me.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 20, 2000.

Clears throat: ***ahem****

Opens mouth and sings: Mi mi mi mi. Ut re mi fa so la ti do. Mi mi mi mi.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 20, 2000.

Lian,

Still about YOU, isn't it? YOU followed the link...

frank,

You wrote: Has OTFR been PROVEN to have shared IPs with people (other than say giving Hawk ***example only*** the IP of someone using Hawk's handle)?

I would have absolutely no problem with the practise of emailing IPs of impersonators to their respective "impersonatees," provided two small things were done:
1) This policy was posted when the board began, and not imposed, and then posted, as a "rule;" and
2) It was applied evenly accross the board without respect to one's views (present or past) regarding the outcome of the non-event.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

hmmm,

I understand that poker is a popular game in America, and even more popular is the tendency bluff or engage in calling one's bluff.

Yes, that is indeed the case here.

In most of the world, however, this is not the case.

Non-western cultures (mine included) debate most comfortably from the position of being underestimated by one's opponent. This way, one feels (or at least I feel) less guilt about allowing my opponent in a debate to earn the scorn I am capable of heaping upon them. One can also, when one's opponent has conducted themselves honorably and with intellectual integrity, choose to gently offer corrective counterpoint.

As for the card game or poker, I enjoy it and usually win, for I always hold a better hand than my opponent believes.

Excellent. That is most clever.

So, by all means, keep pushing, twit. You may realise (though too late for any correction) that you're as correct about your assumptions in this matter as you were in your assumptions about Y2k...

Thank you for your support. I was, in fact, quite correct about my assumptions about Y2K. I believed that it would be a BITR or less, and in fact, this appears to be so.

You can feel free to call me names like "twit" if you like and if it makes you feel that you hold the better "hand." However, name-calling is really a poor substitute for actual evidence, of which you still have provided none.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 20, 2000.

The only people who have any evidence is Flint and Carlton, and I have noticed both of them avoiding this issue like the plague. Seems ole Flint hasn't posted at all lately, has he?

For answers; hang out at Bok0nons and talk to the regulars there.

-- (Another @anon.anon), June 20, 2000.

Say, Andy Ray -- are you sure your attorney knows squat about US law. I'm not aware of anything that would prevent OTFR from either sharing your ISP with others for non-commercial purposes or would require her to provide you with information on her having done so.

You linked to an article on the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Read it. It relates only to entities involved in trade or commerce. Link: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/law/GetObject.asp? objName=Act-331-of-1976&queryid=389844&highlight=consumer+protection.

So, exactly where in there do you see anything that relates to this issue?

Get a real US attorney, and pay him or her to do some research. Your BS citations to US law are giving us real US attorneys a bad reputation.

And, you know, up to this point, I've generally supported you. I am and was a "polly" (hence the handle I use). I like your "quotably quoted" series. But, this time I think you're out of line.

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 20, 2000.

Yo, Deano.

As shown above ("Do I have to dust off the MIT E-mail list?" Andy Ray) the ONLY folk e-mailing the MIT Admin were Andy, and/or people he "discussed the option with, and it got out of hand".

Just setting the record straight.

Chuck

(And by the way, the reference to less than stable people was made in reference to the people who were e-mailing and snail mailing various administration people at MIT as well as at Ars Digita trying to have them pull the plug on the TB2K Forum. these people were exceedingly livid about the "unconstitutional censorship" which they were SURE was unconstitutional because the forum was being supported by tax money through the relationship with MIT, and thus was a governmental entity. I'd LOVE to support that with the e-mails I got from Phil, but I threw them away in March.) C

-- Chuck, a Night Driver (rienzoo@en.com), June 20, 2000.

Chuck, I agree in part, some DID think that the nonsense at TB2000 and the tendancy to discourage/inhibit opposing opinions warranted emailing MIT. Some expressed the opinion that it was publically funded by being housed/powered, etc at MIT.

I was not one of those who felt this way, and argued against it at debunkers.

But that's not the end of the story - others emailed MIT as well, including doomers, including non-pollies at TB2000, anyone who felt they were treated unfairly. I think that Phil Greenspun would best answer this question though.

As far as "Lusenet", I always thought it was a bit of public service, and Phil left the forums to their owners/"Moderators".

Andy, as far as IP addresses being ruled as "private" information, I doubt it - but open to changing my mind if anyone shows me legal rulings, I have'nt seen them in this matter.

The "fairness" issue is a valid complaint, but shouldn't this also be dealt with "fairly"? Maybe a private email to OTFR, a little politeness (yeah, I am the pot calling the kettle black, lol!).

Choose your battles - is this one worth it? So OTFR may have been unfair, hey, I've seen that before. That's life isn't it?

And you have a lot of "no email address" detractors here, who will argue till hell freezes over with you on this matter, with nothing to loose.

I am seriously considering a policy for my own self after reading this thread - no email address, no response. Persona non grata, moral coward, not worth a response. Get an email address, or hide somewhere else....

-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), June 20, 2000.

snobbery==robbery.

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), June 20, 2000.

Chuck,

It's nice to see you post using your pre-non-event moniker.

Deano,

I emailed MIT a few times. I didn't start by emailing MIT, but rather by emailing the Hysterium moderators. I asked them politely to exhibit some sense of fairness in their application of the "rules." I was informed that I had no right to post on the Hysterium because I disagreed with the meme.

Next, I emailed Mr. Greenspun. His response was to dodge and weave. Obviously a doomer. He didn't like the doomers he shared this distinction with (as obviated by his email to them), but he shared it nonetheless. I attempted to persuade him that his forum software was being abused by a limited few. Rather than address the issue, he chose to insult.

Next I emailed MIT. I exchanged a few email messages with people who handle complaints dealing with MIT's systems, and a few administrative personnel.

Apparently it caused more difficulty for some than I intended. All I can think of in response is...*sigh*...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 20, 2000.

Andy Ray -- when I first read you posts I admired you. Now, I think your losing it, or that my initial evaluation was wrong.

Why, for example, would Mr. Greenspun want to discus this with you? From a legal point of view, he's best off allowing individual forums to self moderate -- irrespective of whether or not that moderation is "free speech" or absolute facist censorship.

Why did you think it was productive to bother the man in the first place?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), June 20, 2000.

Andy,

Why don't you just start your own forum and talk to yourself? That way you won't irritate us and waste our time.

-- Qyestion Man (Qman@idiots.go.away), June 21, 2000.

>> I emailed Mr. Greenspun. His response was to dodge and weave. Obviously a doomer. <<

They say a word to the wise is sufficient.

This quote speaks volumes on the quality of the logic Andy Ray brings to the table. As self-justification it is transparent and basically pretty pathetic. A child could see through this one. Even Paul Milne (gag me!) was better at rhetoric than this sub-standard attempt at self-rationalization.

Hey! Andy Ray! Tell me I'm...,well, whatever it is you think will best erase the taste of this silliness from people's memories. Maybe you can call me a doomer. Yeah, that should do it. A stupid doomer. maybe even a meme-eaten stupid doomer. Feel free to add adjectives as you see fit.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

Mr. Porter,

I never sought your admiration.

Lian,

Still about YOU, isn't it?

YOU want me to use adjectives as I see fit...

Anyone seen OTFR? For all Lian's nonsense and self-centredness, at least he isn't hiding behind some made up email address - ashamed to post using last year's alias...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

>> Still about YOU, isn't it? <<

Same old tired formula, huh? Wassa matter? Do I play too rough for you, Andy old chum? Nothing ventured, nothing gained, they say.

Don't be content to hide behind a tired old formula. Risk a little. After all, what exactly do you have to lose? Face? Heck! You're faceless, Andy Ray. Totally and completely faceless. C'mon out and play.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

>>Non-western cultures (mine included)<<

Did we know this before? That Andy Ray claims to be from a non- Western culture.

Can we deduce that he is a resident of Britain but was born perhaps in one of the former colonies?

Just thinkin' aloud

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

>> Can we deduce that he is a resident of Britain but was born perhaps in one of the former colonies? <<

My guess is probable Aussie or Kiwi. The Brits have been expelled from most of their former colonies since before Andy Ray was born. He is no older than 26, by my best reckoning. If he's older than that, he's immature beyond his years is all I can say.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

Lian, Lian, Lian,

Alas, you are all caught up in yourself, and so droll. Do YOU play too rough for me... pity...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

>> Alas, you are all caught up in yourself, and so droll. Do YOU play too rough for me... pity... <<

"His response was to dodge and weave. Obviously a doomer."

-Andy Ray, June 20, 2000

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

He is no older than 26, by my best reckoning. If he's older than that, he's immature beyond his years is all I can say.

The "reckoning" of a doomer! With your track record, even, Lian - let's see, you're 0 for 1 at this stage, right?

Still hung up upon yourself, too...by YOUR best reckoning...is all YOU can say...

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

AR - It's 1.20 am. I thought you had a meeting in the morning?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

>> Alas, you are all caught up in yourself, and so droll. Do YOU play too rough for me... pity... <<

"His response was to dodge and weave. Obviously a doomer."

-Andy Ray, June 20, 2000

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

Lian,

This is a good first step for you. Begin by quoting reputable sources (unlike those you spewed last year...). It's nice to see you begin to grow out of your memetic doomer past.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

>> Begin by quoting reputable sources (unlike those you spewed last year...). <<

Citations, please. I will stand by anything I said last year. If you assert I used questionable sources, verify this. Since you appear to know I did something like this, verification should be pretty easy.

If you can't verify this, we'll just have to classify this with your other stupid guesses, such as assuming (incorrectly in this same thread) that hmmmmm was anything but a BITR polly.

This is where the nose rubs the hooey, Andy Ray. Care to show your cards, or are you just going to fold and insist you held the winning hand?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

One final guess for the night about Andy Ray.

He's from the Sub-Continent, but educated in Britain (Oxbridge, maybe). His syntax reminds me of some guys I worked with when I was in London.

(But then again my guess is worth what you paid for it........)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Just wondering.

Why would anyone with a valid criminal or civil case against OTFR, Phil Greenspun, or especially MIT feel the need to "dust off the ... email list" and pursue their case via email instead of through the courts or, at the very least, through a lawyer's letter to the guilty party demanding reparations? Is that how a really smart poker player would proceed?

Gosh. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

Andy doesn't care about "reputable sources". He ignored what the US Senate had to say about Y2K. He ignored the .gov $50 million Y2K command center. He ignored the warnings from IBM and IEEE...

Andy thinks that Yourdon and his forum are responsible for the Y2K "fear". He has collected 300+ posts from that forum, out of 300,000+ and he says that it represents that forum. 1/10th of one percent of the total volume at TB2000, represents what the forum was about. And better yet, he says that this one single forum, out of the hundreds of Y2K sites that were out there, is the real cause of the problem...

I hope someone understands this, because I sure don't...

My guess: Someone at the old TB2000 gave Andy a really hard time, and he just hasn't gotten over it yet...

(But then again my guess is worth what you paid for it........)

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 21, 2000.

"Doc" Paulie tells about effort to remove TB2000 from MIT server

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012Bg

-- This one (is@for.Deano), June 21, 2000.

Thanks MIT for looking the other way and supporting your own Terrorist Breeding ground, Thanks!

http://www.stand77.com/wwwboard/messages/6432.html

No better example of irresponsible behavior exists than the hosting of TimeBomb2000 by MIT. MIT is blind-stupid-and PART of the problem. They will not even follow their own rules, and can muster only lame retorts having zero to do with anything but kissing Phil Greenspun's butt. MIT you are a JOKE, a FARCE, and contributing to yet more of what you claim to be about, less freedom.

-- This one is (for@Deano.too), June 21, 2000.

Sorry folks! My mistake.

Obviously, there are screwed up individuals all over the place.

What a strange little world some folks choose to live in.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), June 21, 2000.

I see it is time to set this record straight. Chuck has tried in the past to mis-represent Phil's letter here. So...let us look at it in context, shall we?

POINT ONE: "Y2K is a fun paranoia..." Mr. Greenspun was never a "doomer". In fact, many of the doom zombies tried to tar and feather him after he presented his "official" view to the forum.

POINT TWO: The letter is written to a doom zombie. Note the opening from Phil "while they were bitching and moaning, it was me who was up until 4:00 am last night reconfiguring the server to handle more load "

This is a reference to the crashed machine. If the "pollies" wanted the Timebomb pulled and it WAS....why would they be complaining to Phil? hmmm.....

POINT THREE: Most doomers say that #4 was in reference to posters like cousin Andy Ray and that psycho-witch LL. I do not disagree that LL is very unstable but YOU CANNOT stop reading at that point. The last paragraph from Phil puts the nail in the coffin;

"So encourage all of your Y2K friends to keep on writing to me telling me what a bad person I am for asking you to donate $25 to an animal charity. It might tip the scales in favor of just pulling the server's power cord and moving on to something more fun..."

Once again, if this is addressed to "pollies", why would they be complaining? If they truly wanted the server pulled, they would be cheering, not writing letters telling Phil how bad he was.

NOTE ON GETTING TIMBOMB "PULLED": the ONLY person to state that publicly was Doc Paulie, and he clarified later that he just wanted them moved from MIT's servers, NOT silenced. CPR and ALL the rest of the "pollie" crowd quickly disavowed any attempts to have the plug pulled on TB.

"the truth shall set you free"

Truthful Regards,

-- Andrew Raymond (cousin@andy.ray), June 21, 2000.

More for cousin Andy Phil was never a doomer

Doomers ask "why are the photo's at the bottom of the threads?" (shows their paranoia)

Phil's y2k take

Truthful Regards,

-- Andrew Raymond (cuz@to.andyray), June 21, 2000.

Cousin,

I like the red.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

Still awaiting the list [of disreputable sources I "spewed" last year], Andy Ray.

Vindicated regards,

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 21, 2000.

This is really a giggle!

Doc paulie how dare you sir. Do you have crap for brains or are you just plain evil. Tb2000 is a national treasure. Y2k will probably be the second most important event to empact our planet since WWII. Maybe you dont think y2k is a big deal, but I do. You have never work on our nations early warning systems but I have. Im praying real hard for our world leaders that they can figure out how to keep things peaceful through what will definitely be the cluster f of the century. The goal of mr greenspun and others like myself who visit this site on a regular basis is to help millions of people around the world to survive the coming apocalypse. No we dont wish it to happen you sickie, we have families and friends we love very much and care for who are stuck in a denial mode that will put their existance at risk. MIT will be honored by the survivors of the y2k as being an organization of great integrity and community service for helping millions to survive the y2k by not listening to fools such as you doc. By seeing to it that our insitutions of academia will not cave in to govt induced slander or pressure when the lives of millions of people are at stake. To Mit sysop dont you dare take tb2000 off your net. It will be an incredible time capsule of how we reacted to this tremedous threat for our future generations to learn from. (As Andy Ray is showing us

-- y2k aware mike (y2k aware mike @ conservation . com), July 02, 1999.

I wonder when he "got it"

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), June 21, 2000.

Lian,

First things first. I will provide your list aftre I receive the list I requested from OTFR.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

And what happens when you receive no response? Will you assume guilt based on the lack of response to your inquiry?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 22, 2000.

>> I will provide your list aftre I receive the list I requested from OTFR. <<

What an odd position to take. The two matters are totally unrelated, except in your imagination.

I simply requested that you substantiate a statement you made about a matter of fact. In making that statement you appeared to have certain knowledge of its factuality.

Now, by refusing to back up your own statement, you show a peculiar lack of faith in your own truthfulness. By tying your lack of response to a completely unrelated matter, you only appear to be constructing a flimsy scrap of an excuse that you can hide behind.

Why would you feel the need to make such a weak, transparent excuse for your lack of response? We can only speculate.

But, hey! It's your choice. I can only comment on it.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 22, 2000.

One further comment. There is no parallel between Andy Ray's silence in response to my request and OTFR's silence in response to Andy Ray's request.

In Andy Ray's case, he is refusing to back up his own statement of fact, when he was requested to do so.

In OTFR's case, she is refusing to back up Andy Ray's statement of "fact". Again, that is not her job. It is Andy Ray's job to back up his own assertions about OTFR. Why is he pretending otherwise?

So, in not backing up his assertions about me, he is only shirking his obligations for a second time. OTFR has no obligations in this matter. I have no obligations in this matter. Only Andy Ray is dodging and weaving here.

Obviously a doomer.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 22, 2000.

Lian,

Truly, you are demonstrating the spurious critical thinking skills that convinced you that Y2k was going to be a catastrophic event.

Now, be a good little(-minded) memetic doomer...pretend I'm Mr. Youdom or Mr. Helter, and I'm certain you could convice the world of the need for everyone to prepare for OTFR to provide the information I requested, as well as the "gubmint" plot to conceal the "truth" from the populace. (It's very difficult to type while laughing this much...)

Wait your turn, little boy.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.

Your rhetoric is degenerating, Andy Ray. This last one wasn't an argument, it was just fuming.

Your problem is that you still believe you have any answers left, other than proving your assertions with facts or admitting you were in error.

Under those conditions, silence may just be your wisest option. It doesn't expose you quite as painfully and obviously as your empty words do.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 22, 2000.

Er. BTW, Andy my sweet, you have now asserted that I was "convinced" that Y2K was going to be "a catastrophic event." This is news to me.

Evidence, please?

This isn't unreasonable. After all, every word I posted to TB2000 and to csy2k was under my own name and is available in archives. I posted to these groups as often as twice a day for over eight months. There is a rich repository of material to draw on.

Surely, if I was convinced in 1999 of inevitable catastrophe in 2000 and I was drawing on disreputable sources to support these conclusions, these facts would be evident on the most cursory examination of my posts.

There have to be some skeletons in my closet you can dig up to embarass me. I'm not so brash as to believe everything I said last year was properly hedged and qualified to protect me from embarrassment. I must have stumbled now and then and said something fairly stupid you could hurl back in my face. I know it would give you substantial pleasure to catch me out, too.

If you can substantiate these claims of yours, I promise I will post a statement owning up to my own plain words, quoted out of my mouth and say "you are right." Imagine that. Savour it around on your tongue. Wouldn't it be sweet?

Go for it!

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), June 22, 2000.

Now Lian,

Be a good little(-minded) doomer and wait your turn...after all, the world's not going to end, is it?

Vindicated and Amused Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), June 22, 2000.