CPR,Andy Ray, et al - stooges for North/Yourdon?

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

If one tries to find valid optimistic Y2K arguments on TB2000 in 1999, one has to look long and hard. They are there, to be sure: Hoffmeister, Decker, Flint certainly presented well reasoned arguments in support of a mild Y2K.

But by and large, the "typical polly" argument as presented by Andy Ray, Y2K Pro, YouKnow, etc., was so laughable (e.g., references to "memes") it is no wonder that few would take the pollies seriously.

My question: Could it be that the so-called Y2K "de-bunkers" such as CPR were -- and are -- actually being paid by North & co. to advance "optimistic" Y2K arguments that were DESIGNED to be laughed off, thus diluting and drowning out Hoffmeister, Decker, etc? Even to this day, North and Yourdon may find it advantageous to have their seemingly most dedicated critics come across as being nutcase buffoons.

This is, of course, pure speculation on my part. But it sure would explain a lot.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), July 07, 2000


I suppose that depends. Did you find the arguments by Andy Ray, Y2K Pro, YouKnow, etc., to be so laughable that you were more inclined towards the doomer point of view as a result?

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), July 07, 2000.

It couldn't have been scripted any better. Showering the Devil with castigation and ridicule while wrapping the whole show in unabashed glee and laughter. What a bassakwards way to influence potential disciples of the dark side. Especially among the TB crowd who felt (quite rightly so) that had fallen among FRIENDS. Interesting thought.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 08, 2000.

Just for the record, CPR rarely posted on the old TB2000, and Andy Ray didn't appear until very late in the game, so your theory is somewhat flawed. :)

Incidentally, I posted regularly at TB2000 from about mid-February through early June, 1999. I lost interest and left primarily because I was very tired of repeating myself.

(I mean, how many different ways can you say, "thousands of computers blow up now, every day, and we work around them?").

I don't know whether you'd consider my arguments "cogent" or "well-reasoned." All I know that they weren't very well-received by most of the forum participants. From the day I appeared here, the usual routine played out:

1. The "Who Are You?" Game. The regulars tried to figure out who I was and whether I had the "right" to pontificate on Y2K with any "authority."

(Authorities fell into two general groups: (1) those who were working -- or at least CLAIMED to be working -- on the problem, and (2) those who'd researched Y2K for a zillion hours (usually on the Web).)

2. The "He's Not One Of Us" declaration. When it became obvious that I was something worse than a Polly (in their view), the hardcore Doomers said, "Warning: he's Not GI" and that settled it for most of them.

3. The Personal Attack Stage. At this point, anything I said was instantly attacked by people like Andy EOD2000. I was a moron. An imbecile. I wanted people to die. I didn't know what I was talking about. Oh, please, Regulars, don't listen to this Dangerous Man.

(And stuff like that.[g])

Your supposition is interesting, but isn't supported by the facts. By your own admission, Hoff, Decker and Flint presented "well-reasoned" arguments against Y2K doom, and it made no difference to the hardcore Doomers. So, even if Y2K Pro and the other more ... erm, opinionated[g] Pollies had tried to present their viewpoint in a more reasoned manner, it wouldn't have made one lick of difference.

Not one lick.

You know it and I know it.

Nice theory, and a great attempt to pierce through the growing boredom with the entire subject in general, but it falls short. My general attitude -- that computers were incapable of causing the disruptions imagined by Doomers to start with -- just didn't sit very well with them. I was expected to play the Compliance Game ... in other words, to argue about whether or not the systems were "being fixed," whether companies were lying about fixing them, etc., etc. Few people wanted to go back to the original premises behind the whole thing and consider whether they were wrong to start with.

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), July 08, 2000.

PS - those of us who "know" Charlie (by private email, at least) have a VERY difficult time imagining him to be anyone's "stooge."

The Stoogifier would soon find that, rather having a compliant Stoogee on his/her hands, that he/she had the proverbial tiger by the proverbial ears, wondering how in the DEVIL to let go without becoming supper. :)

-- Stephen (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), July 08, 2000.

Oh Stephen, don't you know the TB folk scurried twix fora same as the BIFFY & Debunky folk. Less vocal maybe but how do you think Doc got his 4 million hits?

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 08, 2000.

Further, the best "stooge" in this context would be one that doesn't realize that he is. How about this: just enough antagonists pushing just the right buttons to send the best potential stooges over the edge? What could be better? Prime their pump and turn 'em loose.

It's all BS of course but it's the funniest bit of conjecture to come down this pike for a while.

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 08, 2000.

LUBE JOB AND CRAZY "CARLOS the VOID": GO LEARN HOW NORTH DROVE THE Y2k FUD: FROM "Gary North and Y2k": http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm

The "SMOKING GUN" re: North and Yourdon (note the date is LONG before EY published in Winter 1997-8)):



To: Charles Reuben

From: Gary North

Subject: Re: BS

At 01:19 PM 7/17/97 -0500, you wrote:

>> . I figured you out months ago: a real estate salesman with

>>scientific pretentions..

>> ,,,,,,,,,

>Wrong. That is about as accurate as your so-called "analysis" of the

>Year 2000 Date Change problem or your use of the term "Economic Historian".

>Charlie Reuben,

Wrong as I may be, I'm mailing out 250,000 pieces a month with my scenario. Meanwhile, you're showing guys property to buy. I think my version will win out. And i didn't capitalize oine pejorative phrase.

Yourdon has bought my 90% of my analysis and is now publishing a survival book on it.


He is America's one of the world's senior programmers: two dozen books on the topic.

I don't need your approval. I've got his. He is clearly using one of my direct-mail ad pieces on his Web page summary of why the Great Depression is coming. How do I know? I made an error that he reprints -- a kind of water mark. It was a minor error, but it was mine, all mine.

Think of it, though: 250,000 pieces a month. Month after month. My version, not yours.


-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 08, 2000.

Like I said, it is pure (far out) speculation on my part regarding Y2K fearmongers PAYING anyone to deliberately make pollies in general appear to be semi-coherent wackos. Regardless, however, this is exactly the conclusion a reasonable person might come to after reading "meme" gibberish without seeing arguments presented by rational Y2K optimists.

In fact, if I were CPR and I were not on North's payroll, I'd still ask for a cut -- certainly, discrediting pollies by writing lunatic crap ought to be worth something, even if genuine.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), July 08, 2000.

This is right out of the book of the FRINGERS, "when exposed do not sit back, attack. Accuse the other side of anything even that which you might be doing." (See the "how to take over the net that Identity Freaks pass around". HMM. I think I'll post it if LUBE JOB keeps outgassing.


YOU...........are a freaking BEGINNER and an obvious PUNK. Since you are so helpless try the following:

You know the little tube that comes with all the cans your manufacturer gives to consumers to get LUBE into smaller areas?

Gently bend it into U-shape and blow your smelly LUBE GASES into the Void on top.

-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), July 08, 2000.

Not only is the forum still here, but it is experiencing a "doomer renaissance!"

This assumption sounds vaguely familiar. But this is an interesting twist (one which, IMNHO, only a Doomer could concoct with their "interesting" demonstrated ability to "interpret" evidence and "reach" an "accurate" "conclusion..."), for it now appears I was Yourdom's or North's shill - it makes one wonder...

(...laughing heartily while I type...)

Vindicated and Amused Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 08, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ