I apologise, Sysman

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

Okay, Bruce, you win.

I have been picking on you. There's a reason for it - I don't like you. I don't like what you stood for, and I don't like that you have continued to defend the Y2k Doom meme and the fascists that denied my and other's basic human decency to self-expression on a partially-publickly-funded bulletin board.

So, here goes:

1. I posted a message at the DeBunkers Board containing editted code that someone had posted into one of my threads at the Hysterium. I satirically asked the readers to not utilise this code as it was (in my opinion) disruptive to the flow of a civilised debate. Did I author the code? No. Did I reprint it? Yes. Why? It ticked me off a little that someone would be so desperate that they would go to such lengths to stifle the flow of (what has now been historically-proven to be) the truer side of a debate - especially when some people (granted, not an over-whelming percentage, but some) were very concerned about the outcome of the roll-over.

2. I never particpated in or endorsed spamming the forum. There are pollies who received email from me asking them to cease their spamming. They may be willing to verify this, should they read this message, or they may not.

3. I emailed Chuck and Diane regarding the editting and deletion of my posts at the Hysterium. They accused me of doing things that were simply not true (spamming was merely one of them). Diane insisted that if I were to beg their forgiveness for doing the things I never did (with permission to post my begging at the Hysterium included in the request), that I may be allowed to participate in the discussion - she would have to see. This was unacceptable to me for several reasons: chief among them that I was being accused of doing things that the accuser knew I was not doing.

4. When Chuck became a sysop, I almost left the Hysterium. I stopped posting, in fact, for several months. I saw no need. The free flow of information was being allowed, and the truth was being posted and debated publickly. Chuck and I had a decent discussion (in my opinion) via email. A lot of "forum regulars (memetic doomers)" were very disappointed with this arrangement. But then Chuck signed off for a while.

5. When Chuck returned, he posted a message that basically declared a "new sheriff in town" and the sysops were going to clean house now and not tolerate any pollies - regardless of how accurate the posts were. Though the rules had always been applied in a decidedly one-sided fashion (Stan could advertise food and preps, but no polly could have; selective editting/deleting of posts for "bashing" - pollies could be bashed, not doomers; etc...), they were now completely discarded in favour of open, unabashed, and raw fascism. The sysops became the legislature, judicators, and executors of their "law." They made new rules, declared a number of pollies to be in violation of the new rules ex post facto, and executed a sentence denying the basic human decency of unfettered speech.

6. Again, I emailed Chuck and Diane about this. I may have even emailed Ed. The responses were similar to before. I emailed them again, threatening to contact Mr. Greenspun. Nothing changed.

7. Then, and only then, after months of attempting to rectify the unfair situation at the sysop level, did I contact Mr. Greenspun. His response was pithy, but understandable. As far as I was concerned, I had done all I could do to change matters. Then, someone posted my name and email address on the Ask a Question page.

8. This I found completely unacceptable. I emailed Chuck, Diane, Ed, and Phil again - requesting that they remove my name and email address from their page. They refused. I admit it - I became angry.

9. I had a friend contact MIT to obtain email addresses of key personnel. I have the email addresses of some US Representatives in the House of Representatives that sit on oversight committees for educational funding. I contacted all these people regarding my name and email address being defamed on that page. Suffice it to say that, in rather short order, and without any capitulation on my part, my name and email address were removed.

10. At this point, if I had been interested at all in shutting down the Hysterium on MIT servers, I could have. I was told, in fact, that it was going to be shut down as a result of my complaints to congress. You may find this difficult to believe, but I argued for it's continuation - even though my posts were still deleted on sight. Free expression is that important to me, personally.

I believe Y2k is an excellent learning experience. It revealed for thousands (I believe) whom they can and cannot trust. It removed some of the dignity and respect for programmers who called it wrong and went off the deep end in so doing, but that is likely a beneficial thing to have happened. In the end, no one was hurt, and the masses learned that programmers and engineers and historians are subject to the same human error we all are - and they can be dead wrong about something in which they possess years of experience.

I still don't like you. I doubt I ever will. I doubt I will ever respect you as a professional, because of my perception of your very unprofessional behaviour. Please do not confuse an apology with a desire to be "friends." I have no such desire. I can admire the fact that you hung in here and took your lumps without liking you. I can admire the fact that you have been self-educated to a point where universities hire you to instruct programmers without desiring your acceptance.

The truth is, those you defended (and continue to defend) were wrong. I and others were victimised by their wrongness.

Countless others (though statistically insignificant - to some) were harmed by "prepping." In my heart I know that if had been wrong and cost others money, I would endeavour to repay them personally. I am certain that I would have the common decency to apologise to them for my part in misleading them.

I do apologise to you for singling you out much of the time, and for my behaviour towards you pre- and post-rollover.

Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000


Hopefully you two will learn how to play nice together now!

Kinda gets your eyes a little misty, huh........:-)


-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), July 18, 2000.

Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded pathetic memetic doomer?

-- (nemesis@awol.com), July 18, 2000.

What? No Vindicated (and perhaps Amused) Regards?

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), July 18, 2000.

AR, please don't post when you are sober, you aren't funny like this.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), July 18, 2000.


I respect you, and that respect has increased with this post. Even in the face of scorn by people who wouldn't know what honesty is if it bit them in the ass, You have enough character to admit your shortcommings and the honesty to admit your respect for actions of another you do not care for.

In a day and age where "extreme" everything, including extremely rude behavior is the norm, it is nice to be able to acknowledge a decent human being.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), July 18, 2000.

I second what Cherri said...very nice post, Andy.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 19, 2000.

And Andy, your short-comings are manifest. Still, credit where credit is due. Nicely said. But why do I think it wil be back to business as usual by tomorrow?

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

A class statement from a class act! You go buddy!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 19, 2000.

OK Andy,

I accept your apology, and I accept your explanation. Based on what you have just said, I can understand why you felt the way that you did. My view on what was going on has changed drastically since the new forum opened, when Flint, Hoff and co. were banned. I did speak out on this, and I did defend them. Perhaps if you would have taken the time to explain yourself, like you just did, I would have been defending you also. But up until now, I've never been able to get more than a "one line" answer from you.

I'm good at what I do Andy. I'm very good, according to people like IBM. I just want you to understand, that I was not the only professional that was wrong about Y2K. Out of my "1000 man-year" threads, there were only a few pollies (Dean comes to mind). Yea, it was a doomer forum, so this was expected. My only point is that there were many programmers concerned about Y2K, just in our tiny net community. There were many governments, many corporations. And there was real evidence that Y2K could have been a problem, right up until CDC.

People make mistakes, even with the best information available. Look at the Mars probe that crashed last year, because of a metric conversion problem. Hundreds of professionals, working with leading edge technology, each doing their part, each sure that their part is perfect. Simulations, testing, the best possible quality control. But in the end, they failed. In the end, they were wrong...

Andy, I'm sorry you feel that you were victimized by Y2K. Yes, some people were in it for the money. While I do believe in free enterprise, I don't have a problem if you want to go after these guys. But to come after people like me, and many others like me, who didn't have a thing to "make off" of Y2K, and who's only "crime" was to be concerned enough about a problem to speak out on it, and to question it, and to point out that all is not good news, well, I just don't see the point. After all, we're all adults, and we must each make our own decisions in life. We all have access to the same information, if we are concerned enough to go find it. I was concerned enough.

Andy, I'm going to ignore everything else that you posted, concerning me, today. I don't know what lead to your change of heart, but I am glad that you have made this effort. It has been "fun" fighting with you Andy, but I am tired of it. Besides, I don't know what else I can say to you, to make you understand why I am the way that I am.

So go ahead, repost away. Oh, I'll probably comment, but consider it a comment from a fresh attitude. As long as we don't get too personal, again, I don't think we'll have any problems.

Happy Tuesday, Andy. <:)=

PS - I hope this isn't a fake post... (grin)...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 19, 2000.


Way to go. I knew you could do it.

Sysman: Well said.

"The truth shall set you free"

Truthful (and happy) Regards,

Andrew Raymond

-- Andrew Raymond (cousin@andy.ray), July 19, 2000.

Bruce.very nice indeed!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 19, 2000.


Although a lot of your stuff is annoying, this post clearly shows that you can be a somewhat normal, rational person and appears to support Ra's opinion of you. You deserve not to be included in the CPR - Asshole category. How about more posts like this one instead of constantly shoving the Vindicated Regards stuff down the throats of the many of us that didn't harrass you in earlier times? The ones who did don't visit this board much, anyway.

-- Andy Fan (andyfan@no.more.teal), July 22, 2000.


First, the people responsible for the harassment of pollies last year still visit this board.

Second, CPR is not the one with whom you should be angry - you should be angry with those who misled you in the first place. Should you demonstrate a little anger at those who literally used you to further their own petty (and now historically-proven incorrect) agenda, the necessity to point out the idiocy of the previous two and one half years of memetic drivel would evaporate.

Just a thought.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 24, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ