Is Ceep Just A Creep In A Jeep? : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

This forum used to be home of intelligent talks, debates and info. Now look at it!

-- ET is right -he's winning (we@are.losing), September 17, 2000


STenchBomb 2000 I was a PROPAGANDA PIT DIRECTED BY CENSORS and THE "Mr. Yourdon" "expert, computer systems" (and now it seems TireBombs2000). Even he gave up on his sleeez-EY's II.

The purpose of this forum was UNCENSORED Year 2000 discussions. Its become an Exhibition Center for every last "WHY I WAS A DOOMER with excuse" denial position about the fact that Y2k was over as a business Computer issue long before 1/1/2000. AND YOU like them were SUCKERS. the TB I threads "intelligent talks, debates and info"? WHAT PLANET DID YOU OBSERVE THAT FROM? History without *facts* is called "propaganda" or "politicizing". YOU would do anything in your own terror of "losing it all". That is understandable because YOU are the ones the propaganda is *directed* to: the WHITE BREAD 'BURB "watch out for them" CLUBS.


Dear Madam or Sir,

If you are receiving this email, it is because I have read your material regarding the Y2K issue.

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.

I shall send at least one more email to the recipients of this message on or around 3 Jan 00, containing the URL of the website.


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Now see how the TB People "discuss" him (without mentioning that the link goes to a "general discussion" forum on y2kchaos in turn closely alligned to Gary North): Link

However, on the next link, the people are almost rational vs. what appears on TB-DoomCity.mess: CFID=27864&CFTOKEN=15494105&&Thread_ID=3536&mc=9


-- cpr (, September 17, 2000.

HERE IS "ET's" "intelligent conversers......July 4th, 1999 (not that you would have known it on THAT forum or NORTH's.)

Andy Ray is Famous! : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

It sounds like who we thought was our very own Andy Ray is quite well known to other forums and has been spreading his brand of joy in other parts of the internet too.

Check this thread on another forum to see him from another Y2K group's perspective.

-- Hardliner (, July 04, 1999


An active disrupter, there. Good catch, Hardliner. Cheers to another OutingsR! Catch those under-bridge orcs and expose them to light: melting melting, oh what a world!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (, July 04, 1999.

Good catch Hardliner!

-- Andy (, July 04, 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."

As I have stated before, 'tis all in the interests of securing information for a post-Y2K book with the working title "ShowDown @ the Y2K Corral: a study in 'cybernoia'." I have also entertained donating proceeds from the profits to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Microsoft or Apple. Any preferences?

You have been such wonderful participants in my information mining!

:) Regards, Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (, July 04, 1999.


-- Andy (, July 04, 1999.

Disliked as a teenager? not much of a social life? One has to wonder why AR doesn't spend all of his time on the porno sites.........

-- RD. ->H (, July 04, 1999.

Thanks, Hardliner.

This one seems appropos...



The Great Y2K Debate

Date: June 24, 1999 12:45 PM
Author: Colonel O'Truth (
Subject: Burden of proof

It also occurs to me that much or most of current y2k writing is based on an attempt to put the burden of proof on the opposite party. Every lawyer knows that whoever has the burden of proof has an uphill battle to prove his case.

If Ray points out that lots of people are "working hard" on y2k remediation and asserts that until I can prove otherwise to his satisfaction, we have to assume that everything will be hunky-dory on 1-1-2000, and I accept the argument on those terms, I have got an impossible job.

On the other hand, if I point out that the code is broken, and assert that until he can prove to my satisfaction that it has been repaired, and repaired right, and tested end-to-end, we have to assume that 1-1- 2000 will be a disaster, and he accepts those terms, his job is impossible.

And both sides are hip to this, so they concentrate their energies on setting the terms of the debate rather than on debating the issues. And so, very little honest debate occur and people simply polarize into doomer and polly camps which have little of value to say to each other since they are primarily preaching to their respective choirs.

-- Diane J. Squire (, July 04, 1999.


Doesn't that just sound familiar?

I have an idea. As an active measure to improve the ratio of reasonable and intellectually honest participants to trolls, why not extend invitations to such reasonable folks to participate here?

I doubt that "Colonel O'Truth" is a Marine (although he might be!) but he sure sounds like someone I'd be interested in hearing. We could, as they might come to our attention, extend invitations to others who seem likely to improve the quality of the discussion as well.

Certainly I do not mean to suggest that we "raid" other forums, but many participate in more than one forum so the invitation would be, "We'd like to hear from you too", not, "Why don't you blow them off and come over here."

-- Hardliner (, July 04, 1999.

AndyCAPP Ray, you just said, in effect, all your postings are bullshit.

Hope that Rebock tastes good bozo.

-- toatwitfrom (, July 04, 1999.


What I was referring to was A-CAPPs trolling for material for a book.

-- not perfect afterall (, July 04, 1999.

Hardliner, we've extended invitations many times on csy2k for those participants to join threads here. Only *1* has responded, and he happens to lurk here anyway. We've even eMailed Cory re threads which quote him or he might be interested in, with no response.

Ppl are stubbornly "boxed" these days ;^) So fiercely independent they won't deign to acknowledge interesting, kind, generous welcomes.

Also, we were on a ListServ [different topic] which was good; eMailed other ListServs + BBs + forums: no response. Can't figure it out, better luck to you!

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (, July 04, 1999.

Interesting marketing strategy, Hardliner.

Was thinking it would be appropriate when the Prep Forum is up and running. Notes to Coalition 2000, Tom Atlee, Douglass Carmichael, the Y2KForum and other lists seems wise.

Backed up the URL on your post above and found this...

ANNOUNCEMENT: A faster version of this forum has been implemented at:


This forum is by Christians for Christians. This is not a public Forum, but we encourage the Public to participate according to the rules. All posts are considered hypothetical and are the responsibility of the posting person. We welcome all points of view including opposing points of view. Some restrictions apply. You must give a name and legitimate e-mail address at which you can be reached (both may be anonymous). The moderator may remove the posts of anyone who is personally abusive, obscene, blasphemous, or advocates murder. Those who persist in violating these simple rules will be banned from posting. Please attempt to keep your discussion focused on the section you are posting in. Our forum software is powerful, but it is not intuitive. Key feature: the "Reply" button. You must learn how to use it properly. Enjoy, participate, learn, and educate. The survival of all of us depends on it. Do not forget to go to options, you can set them as you wish. You can also search the archives which are linked at the bottom of the screen.


I dont personally post at the Christian sites, (or De Bunker) because I feel it would be a tad hypocritical. Heck, Ive never even posted on csy2k... but thats because I dont care to be blasted anymore than I already am.


Aside note: Thought the posting guidelines above were interesting.

Nest pas?


-- Diane J. Squire (, July 04, 1999.

Appreciate the catch, Hardliner. Hopefully, that means no one will spend the bandwidth to respond to this moron. Wonder what makes A.R. think anyone would be interested in reading a book written by an illiterate who thinks it's novel to troll the internet and assume multiple identities? He or she must not have been on the 'net for very long.

I've extended invites to this forum to two people, spotted on other forums, who seemed that they would add to the quality of discussion here. Both of them cruised by, spotted the troll wars, and moved on.:(

-- RUOK (, July 04, 1999.

It seems to me that any credibility Andy's book might have had on this "observations" is now gone with his admission that he injects himself into the process. To post on the pro and con side of any issue will polute the data and render his "research" and conclusions invalid. There must be no level of decency in Andy. To spend his time causing bitter disagreement among people in the hopes that he can make himself a buck, disqualifies himself as a human. He does, however, seem to have all of the qualifications for national political position.

-- Doc (, July 04, 1999.

What is the "exit strategy?" msg_id=00102V

-- (who@is.andyray), July 04, 1999.

Hardliner: First there was the Stupid Ray, then there was the Andy Ray. Caught in the crossfire?

-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-, July 04, 1999.

Excellent work, Hardliner! I propose sysops delete all Andy Ray threads, including this one, for obvious reasons.

-- Old Git (, July 04, 1999.

Naw, Old Git.

Far better to let it stand as a monument to stupidity.

Someday, someone, just might use the TBY2K Archives to write a historical perspective on... the Y2K that was.


-- Diane J. Squire (, July 04, 1999.

-- cpr (, September 17, 2000.

So, uhhhhh..... Where's the book?

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), September 17, 2000.

Book 'em Dan-o!

-- bok em@dona (danen@yogurt.yum,yum), September 17, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ