Perhaps it would enlighten the group some if we shared how we arrived at the correct conclusion regarding the impact (or lack thereof) of Y2k.
Since we both began the journey as doomers, perhaps it would assist others in their journey and personal growth. As long as there is a TB2K forum around, we might as well put it to some beneficial use, eh?
I propose a series of posts examining the stages through which most informed people progressed to the (rather obvious) conclusion that there would be little or no impact from the roll-over. Your thoughts on how to proceed, as always, are welcome.
Regards,
Andy Ray
PS - remember to preface your posts with the HTML command: <body background=#ffffff>, as only doomers' posts are being "cleaned" by the "moderator" lately.
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 24, 2000
Answers
"Your thoughts on how to proceed, as
always, are welcome."
I suggest you proceed by shoving your head up my ass, and I will shove
mine up yours simultaneously. Do not pull it out until the year 2999.
This way our anti-doomer meme will stay perfectly preserved until we
approach Y3K, when we can annoy people for a couple more years. Wow,
what a fantastic idea!
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 24, 2000.
I DID NOT POST THAT ^^^^^^
Andy, this is an excellent idea. The DOOMZIE MORONS will try to fill
up this thread with BLATHER and FUD MEMES. Call me at 214-369-9922
and we can plan the curriculum. NO ASSHOLE DOOMZIES NEED APPLY. I
have caller ID and I **WILL** trace you.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 24, 2000.
Odd that you should wait until the year 2000 to explain this to us,
Andy Ray. 1999 would have been a better time to do it. Your
main argument last year was Y2k couldn't cause problems because you
hadn't found any chips that would fail at the rollover.
It was a lame argument. Most of us already knew it was embedded
systems that were at risk -- not free-standing chips.
We also had continuing concerns about other areas such as smaller
businesses, local governments, the health care industry and foreign
countries. If you were a doomer at one time, when and how did you
become convinced these other areas had been fixed?
-- Would have been a good (topic@last.year), September 24, 2000.
The truth is that both CPR and Andy were doomers all along. They
started as typical doomers, but the more they learned, the more
frightened they became. Their fear of the unknown became so severe
that their psyche could simply not cope with it.
The mental stress of this overwhelming fear triggered a
self-protective defense mechanism, a fully developed denial delusion.
This served the purpose of preventing a total breakdown by convincing
the conscious part of their psyche that the dire consequences were
simply not possible (the delusion), while on the subconscious level
the deep-seated fear of the realities still prevailed.
The subconscious part of their psyche was the motivating force behind
their aggressive behavior, driving them to constantly and continually
reinforce the denial delusion to the conscious part of their psyche in
order to permit them to continue to cope. The need for this
reinforcement was so powerful that CPR was compelled to abandon his
career, and he and Andy both became obsessed with spending exorbitant
amounts of time on the Internet, contradicting anyone and everyone who
expressed anxieties which they simply could not accept.
-- cyber freud (their.fear@is.clear), September 24, 2000.
Andy Ray:
In all seriousness, if done honestly and responsibly, I truly believe
that this COULD BE one of the best post-Y2K discussion threads ever.
I do recall your earliest posts at ye olde TB2K seemed to raise some
very credible questions regarding the embedded chips/systems issues -
- which, with perfect 20/20 hindsight, have indeed proved completely
and totally correct.
Realistically, I am not expecting much from CPR. He has never, to my
knowledge, been able to come up with a single believable reason as to
why he became such an "optimist" regarding Y2K, other than his
obsessive need to find some kind of holy war against the
dreaded "***DOOMZIES***". Religious reasons don't cut it; logical
ones do.
I too had intended on starting a thread this morning, examining some
Y2K issues in the post-Y2K light, but I will hold off and see how
this thread plays out. I actually believe that it COULD BE very
educational for everyone.
(And thanks for the info about inserting "body background=#ffffff".
I didn't know it had to be used for EACH post, I thought it was a one-
time usage at the beginning of the thread.)
Regards,
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 24, 2000.
(And thanks for the info about inserting "body background=#ffffff".
I didn't know it had to be used for EACH post, I thought it was a
one- time usage at the beginning of the thread.)
It's only necessary to do it once. Subsequent attempts to change
the background will only be visible to users of certain browsers,
but this can be easily cleaned up.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 24, 2000.
IF that is truly the One and Only, Original, Never-Wrong,
All-Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Powerful cpr...
And IF that is truly his phone number...
That is the most ignorant thing he's ever posted (and that's
saying a lot!).
(On the other hand, if it's a Mental Health Clinic in Dallas, it's a
pretty good joke, wot?)
Yes, such a thread COULD BE educational and interesting; and it COULD
BE done honestly and responsibly -- but, sorry, I just don't see that
particular duo being able to pull it off. Those not put off by
AndyRay's smarmy "neener, neener, neener" attitude (BTW, where's the
book?) will be put off by CPR'S FROTHING, RANTING, AND RAVING ABOUT
THE DOOMZIES UNDER EVERY BED. Sorry. With those sponsors, consider it
relatively stillborn.
-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), September 24, 2000.
Even though I know you are "reading impaired"....HERE... BULL
SHITTER.........."King" of Spit:
CPR
(December 1999): The original final Pre-2000 statement for
Russ Kelly
was written for BEETHOVEN"S BIRTHDAY and contained the line, "Long
after 2000,
the music of Beethoven will be played.......". The arrest of two sets
of
Domestic Terrorists forced me to hold that statement that contained a
lashing
for those who spread and/or condoned the use of FUD to sell their
ideas or
products vis a vis Y2k.
In the next few days before Christmas, 1999, people will see one
tangible
aspect of the Y2k problem that few predicted. People will wait at
Airports for
thorough examination of themselves and luggage for possible tools of
Terrorists
planning tragedies instead of Celebration and Rejoicing of the CDC to
2000. At
the borders, traffic will be slowed as cars are searched completely.
Yet, none
of it is directly related to the Y2k Computer Date or Embedded
Systems
Problem.
Rather, it may be related........directly to a
CLIMATE OF FUD,
fear, uncertainty and doubt built and sustained by vested interests
some within
the Computer/Business Sector but strangely, even weirdly propagated
far outside
the boundries of Computers, Business and Government. At the core of
the buildup
of the FUD, was even more strangely, the WWW of the Internet which
enabled the
cheap and rapid re-distribution of admixes of
..........fact.......gossip.....hoaxes and opinion......all (and this
is
critical) ........without the standard Editorial Control that
responsible media
people even those from the far sides of both Political venues, Left
and Right
would exercise.
After 2000, WHO will be held responsible for
the
FUD........and the enormous COST.......to counter act it??
That open
question will be one of the Lessons of Y2k.
Below, I offer
another
knowing that ...........few......will understand. Few will see it and
few will
act because of it. However, I think it offers the key explanation of
HOW and WHY
Y2k as a Computer and Business Problem was addressed, contained to
the current
level where it can be properly managed.
The lesson of Y2k is
that the
PROBLEM **WAS** addressed because it had to be. Western Civilization
is a
history of the conquering of "Problems" and more importantly the
*Improvement*
of the best that we have and hope to be.
Learn the Lesson of
Y2k. NEVER
let it happen again. NEVER. For some, the lesson might be right out
side their
windows in their gardens.
http://stand77.c
om/wwwboard/messages/7955.html
(August 1999): "Aside from minor accidents during Y2k testing
quickly solved
by human intervention, there is no evidence of any "emerging crisis".
Thus,
*reality* suggests we lower the "warning flags" again. So I narrow
the range
down to 1.0 to 1.5."
"Work progresses and one I.T. report
indicates that
96% of mission critical and non critical applications and embedded
systems will
see the end of final testing before 1/1/2000. That leaves 4.0% of the
work not
"finished". NOTE: that does not mean the work is not started.
It means at
the Large Corporate level: 4.0% is not finished. In all sectors of
business,
that alone is "better than usual" for failure and problems are every
day things
in all businesses or all would be "perfect". We know that is not the
case EVER.
Since the pessimists make the claim that the "failures are being
hidden" the
argument for "interconnectedness" falls apart. If everything were
"interconnected" how could the "failures" be hidden?? That would
imply the 45
Million Employees of large Corporations have the ability to "cover it
all up".
That is ludicrous. There are either real "impacts" or there are not.
The
argument for "they're coming soon" is old and stale. The Bottom Line
here is
simple: "problems" can be managed whether Y2k or the weather.
If a manager
can't deal with problems, he is replaced. Y2k is merely a business
problem now
that can be managed."
"The NERC information to be released in
the next
few days will remove most remaining concerns about the ability of
Power
Utilities to conduct business as usual (BAU)."
"That will end
concerns
about the so-called "iron triangle". It now begins to look as though
the
proverbial "bump in the road" might only be on a few back roads and
have little
consequence. The major analysts long ago stated that problems vis a
vis Y2k
would take place throughout 1999. Several estimates range from 15%-
25% taking
place before 1/1/2000. Now one well known Y2k "expert" claims he
underestimated
the ability to hide the problems that might have been found. I see no
reason to
comment on such a statement. The fact is there was major damage to
business
networks in the Orient from the well known Computer virus: CIH. There
was no
effect noted either in the Global 2000 supply chains or in Corporate
earnings.
The Dow, Nasdaq and S&P may be irrational but they do measure
earning power
and consumer confidence in several ways. There is no reason to
believe the
Retail market will not set every record known in the 4th Quarter as
we celebrate
the Last Festival of the Merchants of the 20th Century. Like Dr.
Yardeni, I have
long questioned the ability of the economy to continue faced with the
impacts of
Y2k and all sorts of serious problems from offshore. But only a True
Fool argues
with reported results to date."
"Bottom line?? We have have
underestimated the ability of the US/European and World economy to
handle all
problems whilst overestimating Year 2000 impacts. History will answer
such
questions not I. Charlie Reuben DALLAS, A YEAR 2000 READY CITY."
(May 1999): "Please change my evaluation of the y2k problem down
again almost
to the Nick Z. range: 2.0-3.5. It would take a series of major
exposes about
"uncomplete-able work" before I would raise that range which includes
now 2/3rds
due to "Y2k panic vendors". Even that is almost over. The "fever" is
broken."
"Dallas is a MAJOR I.T. center and a Y2k remediation center. The
DFW/DAMA Y2k
group has had presentations from most major corporations, Texas
Utilities and
the Fed.Reserve Bank and all present the view point that they can
manage their
problems. The HCFA seminar show progress even in lagging Health
related
Enterprises, gov. and private."
"The theme here is simple: "There will be failures but they will
be
"managed"."
"My view now is that Y2k as a business/computer problem is
OVER ...IF... work
in progress continues at the increasing rates being reported. We know
the
knowledge base accumulated over the past five years is being deployed
by the
Legitimate Consultants and Vendors at increasing rates. Most of
the "scary
stories" now are merely about the Public or OLD re-hashes of "what-
ifs" or "lets
pretend". "Lets Pretend" was a radio show that went off the air by
the early
1950s. Y2k is heading that way now."
"Y2k has reached the stage nicely described in Corinthians: "Why
seek ye
after a vain thing?" Its not over but it is "winding down". Those who
don't see
this are now the ones in "denial". If I have one special expertise in
Y2k it is
in tracking the "Extremists" and Fear Pushers and now, the "Back of
Y2k
Hysteria" has been broken just as de Jager discusses the REAL
PROBLEM: the
Computer/Embedded Systems related problems. There will always be
niche panic
people over any issue. NOW.....few believe the claims of the Y2k
"Extremists"."
"There is now simply too much evidence that the Fortune 2000, even
SMEs and
the Government entities have a "problem that can be managed" no
matter how many
breakdowns may come from the Code or the Embedded systems
problems."
"Contingency plans including inventory stockpiling would enable
even the GMs
of the world to function until "Weak Links" in the vendor or even
customer lines
can be "Fixed on Failure"."
"The NERC summary and the NRC release clears up the status of the
Utilities
and there is little need to debate the Telco or Bank progress. The
Security
Industry is on track."
"As for "Public Panic" NOT BLOODY LIKELY if the so-called "Iron
Triangle"
performs as now expected."
"And recently, there has been a significant drop in the commerce
associated
with the Web Sites pushing so-called Y2k Supplies. Business is off by
their own
reports."
"Just last week, Y2kNewswire.com reported that several vendors are
in trouble
because the PUBLIC is returning merchandise. The "purported" shortage
of Honda
Diesels has been corrected by Honda shipping to distributors and
Honda can ramp
up more if they see the need is there."
(March 1999): "The release of the Corporate information has
reduced the
possibility of any impacts from the Y2k computer date problem into a
more than
manageable range. I rate the Computer/Business problem now at 3.0.
However, the
public hysteria due to widespread confusion about remediation makes
the Public
perception now a major part of the Y2k problem. I rate that as : an
additional
2.5 or almost equal to the Computer Business problem."
(August 1998): "Disclosures of the timelines of some major Corps
re:
completion of Y2k work. In particular: AT+T, Texas Utilities,
BankBoston and the
City of Dallas. In addition, the State of Texas is meeting all goals
as
described to Rep. Horn in testimony last Monday here in D/FW. Last
but not
least, private communications to me show that other Banks and
Utilities are in
much better shape than reported."
http://www.russkelly.com/statements.html#Reuben
-- Charlie Reuben (buytexas@swbell.net), September 24, 2000.
MAY 1999:
"As for "Public Panic" NOT BLOODY LIKELY if the so-called "Iron
Triangle"
performs as now expected."
"And recently, there has been a significant drop in the commerce
associated
with the Web Sites pushing so-called Y2k Supplies. Business is off by
their own
reports."
"Just last week, Y2kNewswire.com reported that several vendors are
in trouble
because the PUBLIC is returning merchandise. The "purported" shortage
of Honda
Diesels has been corrected by Honda shipping to distributors and
Honda can ramp
up more if they see the need is there."
(March 1999): "The release of the Corporate information has
reduced the
possibility of any impacts from the Y2k computer date problem into a
more than
manageable range. I rate the Computer/Business problem now at 3.0.
However, the
public hysteria due to widespread confusion about remediation makes
the Public
perception now a major part of the Y2k problem. I rate that as : an
additional
2.5 or almost equal to the Computer Business problem."
(August 1998): "Disclosures of the timelines of some major Corps
re:
completion of Y2k work. In particular: AT+T, Texas Utilities,
BankBoston and the
City of Dallas. In addition, the State of Texas is meeting all goals
as
described to Rep. Horn in testimony last Monday here in D/FW. Last
but not
least, private communications to me show that other Banks and
Utilities are in
much better shape than reported."
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 24, 2000.
Oh God, not again.
-- Lars (lars@indy.net), September 24, 2000.
If I have one special expertise in Y2k it is in tracking the
"Extremists"
Add yourself to the list of extremists yet, Charlie? You should.
-- (xxx@xxx.xxx), September 24, 2000.
Andy Ray:
Do you see what I mean? (Also, if do you place a call to CPR, be
sure and use 1-800-COLLECT.)
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 24, 2000.
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/01/biztech/articles/09year
.html?AltaVistaRefId=LmY_WEFnnnnuntly_W
Link
January 8, 2000
Experts Puzzled by Scarcity of Y2K Failures
By BARNABY J. FEDER
Whether it is with scorn, anger or resignation, most computer experts
and Year 2000 program managers brush off suggestions that they
overreacted to the Y2K threat, taken in by computer companies and
consultants positioned to profit from fear.
Still, like the skeptics, many wonder: How did countries that started
so late -- and appeared to do so little -- manage to enter 2000 as
smoothly as nations like the United States and Britain that got an
early jump?
"That question is plaguing all of us, although some people won't
admit it," said Maggie Parent, Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's
representative to Global 2000, an international banking group formed
to coordinate and stimulate Year 2000 work. "We expected there to be
some significant blowouts."
A World Bank survey published last January concluded that just 54 of
139 developing countries had national Year 2000 programs outlined and
only 21 were actually taking concrete steps to prepare.
Japan, China, Italy and Venezuela showed up as high-profile question
marks in various studies. Paraguay's Year 2000 coordinator was quoted
last summer saying the country would experience so many disruptions
its government would have to impose martial law. Russia, Ukraine,
Belarus and Moldova were seen as so risky that the State Department
issued travel advisories in November and called nonessential
personnel home over New Year's.
So what accounts for the surprisingly quiet rollover? Computer
experts cite several factors. Even they may have underestimated how
hard many countries worked in the last few months, when the problems
were better understood, and how much help came from others that
started early. And in many cases, assessments of overseas readiness
were based on scarce or vague data.
But the simplest if most embarrassing explanation is that the some
public and private analysts who testified before Congress and were
widely quoted overestimated the world's dependence on computer
technology. Most countries had much less to do to prepare because
they are far less computerized than the United States. The computers
they do have are much less likely to be tied together in complex
systems and are often so old that they run much simpler software,
according to Louis Marcoccio, Year 2000 research director for the
Gartner Group, a technology consulting firm.
At a briefing last week on why Pentagon analysts overestimated the
risks in many countries, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre said,
"If we had a failing, it may be that we extrapolated to the rest of
the world the kind of business practices that we have developed
here."
Once adjustments are made for technology dependence, some analysts
say, the investment of the United States and other pacesetters in
Year 2000 preparations was not that far out of line with those that
started late. But the figures from many countries are so unreliable
that it is hard to be sure. Russia, for example, is estimated to have
spent anywhere from $200 million to $1 billion.
Mr. Marcoccio suspects the lower figures are closest to the truth but
he adds that based on the government's estimate that the United
States spent $100 billion, "If Russia spent $400 million, they spent
proportionally more than the United States, because the United States
is 300 times more reliant on computers."
Such assessments lead down a pathway that only a statistician could
love. Use Gartner's estimate that the United States spent $150
billion to $225 billion, and the comparable Russia investment jumps
to a minimum of $500 million. Tamper with Gartner's guess that the
United States is 300 times as computer-dependent, and figures dance
another direction.
But nearly everyone agrees that the figures for the United States
include substantial sums toward preparations abroad by American
multinationals. Motorola said its $225 million Year 2000 budget
included not just repairs at its overseas factories but, for example,
helping its Asian suppliers pinpoint potential Year 2000 flaws. It
also paid overtime for support that helped paging and radio networks
in Italy function flawlessly over New Year's.
The federal government picked up part of the tab for foreign nations.
To jump-start lagging nations, the government paid for many of them
to send representatives to the first United Nations meeting on Year
2000 in late 1998. It distributed hundreds of thousands of CD's in 10
languages providing background and suggestions for how to organize
Year 2000 projects. More recently, the Defense Department provided $8
million to set up a joint observation post in Colorado as insurance
against miscommunication that could lead to missiles' being launched.
"We got a lot of free consulting from the United States and agencies
like the Inter-American Development Bank," said Rodrigo Martin, a
Chilean who headed a regional Year 2000 committee in South America.
Such aid played a bigger role in helping late starters to catch up
than most people realize, some computer experts say. As John
Koskinen, chairman of the President's Council on Year 2000
Conversion, sees it, hype about the magnitude of the problem misled
fewer people than hype about the impossibility of getting it fixed.
"This was a process that could move faster than the preparedness
surveys," Mr. Koskinen said, noting that alarming press releases and
testimony frequently relied on research that was obsolete within
weeks.
Del Clark, who led the Year 2000 program at Phillips Petroleum,
concurred, saying: "China was the big question mark for us. Part of
what happened was that they were working hard late in 1999 and the
status information was out of date."
It helped that repair efforts became less expensive toward the end
because of the experience gained by those who did the work early and
the tools developed for them, according to Brian Robbins, senior vice
president in charge of the Year 2000 project at Chase. In addition,
Mr. Robbins said, it turned out that some countries like Italy had
done more work than reported.
By 1998, the pacesetters were far enough along for a sense to develop
that others were lagging, and fears about the consequences began
building. There were extenuating circumstances in some cases, like
the economic slump in Asia, and many realized the problems would not
be as daunting as in the United States. But with time short, industry
groups like Global 2000 and a few countries began trying a variety of
tactics to accelerate Year 2000 preparations.
"People outside of information technology don't realize how
incredibly mobilized the world became," Ms. Parent said.
Still, many of those most familiar with the relative preparedness and
spending levels in many foreign countries wonder whether it will be
possible to figure out why things ended up going so smoothly.
Information was always hard to come by and hard to compare since
sources varied so widely in what costs they attributed to Year 2000
work. In general, foreign countries have not included labor costs in
their Year 2000 figures while the United States and Britain have, but
practices have varied widely.
Now that Year 2000 has arrived, the pressure to sort out such data is
disappearing rapidly.
Still, questions about the transition will not go away. What actually
happened might figure in insurance lawsuits because if courts were to
decide insurers were liable for the money companies spent to avoid
problems, the insurers would undoubtedly cite the success of laggards
and low spenders as a sign that budgets for American companies were
needlessly bloated.
More broadly though, comparing preparations and the results achieved
may shed valuable light on cultural differences in how technology is
set up and managed, according to Edward Tenner, author of "Why Things
Bite Back." That in turn could help society deal with problems like
global warming and the proper use of biotechnology. "We really need
to look at the sociology of computing in detail," he said.
-- (perspectives@on.Y2K), September 24, 2000.
KOS,
First, apologies. You do not need to include the body background
in each response to a post to keep it from being defaced by a doomer -
only in the first message, as hmmm stated. (Thank you, hmmm)
I agree, this could be a most interesting thread.
Has CPR changed his alias due to the impersonations yet? Perhaps
he's not quite the coward some are...
Your main argument last year was Y2k couldn't cause problems
because you hadn't found any chips that would fail at the rollover.
It was a lame argument.
Anonymous, Multi-Aliased, Demonstrably-Ashamed Doomer;
There is little truth in what you posted above. This explains at
least two things: 1) the critical thinking skills you applied to any
problem (Y2k included); and 2) your willingness to post (and likely
accept) bold-faced lies as though they were fact. A clue follows:
Your email address and alias were not the reason you got Y2k
wrong. The problem lies with something you have not (yet, apparently)
addressed.
But on to the subject at hand...
I remember reading an article in Q2-97 regarding Y2k and potential
problems. My initial reaction was "My goodness, they're right."
As I have stated, I own some businesses. One of them is directly
involved with manufacturing automation - and, frankly, this
particular company has excellent engineers in employ. I asked them to
look into the matter for me.
In the meantime, I began some personal research. I was enthralled
by one web-site in particular that seemed a clearing-house of data
related to Y2k and preparedness (it was not Gary North). I have some
knowledge in the area of manufacturing automation, and when I found
an article addressing this segment of the Y2k issue, I read it with
intense interest...and was seriously disillusioned by what I read.
The effect was personally stunning.
As I read, I saw familiar term after familiar term mis-defined,
mis-applied, and mis-represented. I emailed the author, and an email
exchange ensued. This person (and many, many others) believed himself
an expert on the subject due to his time invested on the
internet "researching" the matter. That was acceptable for me, but
his insistence that this qualified him to argue subject points
with engineers with years of experience illuminated the type of
personality involved.
Additionally, I recall one exchange regarding timing in
controllers whereby I asserted that the pin on any IC (embedded or
otherwise) labeled "clock" was not, in fact, referring to an
input from a real-time clock, or even a digital clock; but was,
rather, from a square-wave generator of some sort or other. First,
the response returned was that I was lying. The second response was
that he had spoken to a friend of his who was an engineer, and
he had told him I was wrong. Now this is a matter taught to most
technical program high school students, and was/is really not a
matter of any credible debate. The experience proved useful for the
future, though - as this mindset pervaded the doomer meme.
It was about at this time that I discovered the Hysterium.
I posted a few innocuous questions annonymously. They were pounded
as heresy by the faithful - there's really no better way to describe
the reaction.
In fact, though I've never mentioned this before, I did the exact
same thing that Mr. Poole did - I posted an "anonymous report." I did
not, however, ever "out" myself. And, the information I posted was
entered into congressional record by Mr. Bruce Webster, and quoted by
Mr. Ed Yourdon and Mr. Gary North. It was never checked for accuracy,
and was completely and verifiably inaccurate. It was accepted because
it fit the meme, and "anonymous" was heralded for his courage for
coming forward with such crucial data at the risk of job loss,
etc.
Some will scoff at this. They do not understand science or
engineering. It was an experiment. If truth was ridiculed, it did not
necessarily mean that lies would be accepted. How is one to know?
Simple, construct a lie and see. Which I did. It was at this point
that I began posting as Andy Ray. It was, I believe, early July,
1999.
I began posting that I was collecting data for a book. I clearly
established that I did not believe any harm would come to anyone from
Y2k-related computer failures. And that fact was the deciding factor
in my treatment at the Hysterium - and here, to some extent.
Incidentally, the book sold horribly, but collecting the data
proved an interesting experience.
Throughout my posting on the Hysterium I maintained one rule: I
would be as tolerant as possible of those with whom I disagreed. And,
I believe I lived up to that standard.
As I have stated before, when I was treated unfairly, I first
emailed the moderators. This proved largely an unfruitful exercise.
It was when clear and obvious abuses of power began - among them, the
posting of the names on the Ask A
Question page - that I exchanged emails with MIT staff on the
matter.
For the record (especially for the King Of "Agreements," Sysman),
there was no "agreement" for me to post or not post anything in
exchange for removing my name from that list. I utilised the time-
honoured tact of pestering Mr. Greenspun's boss until something was
done about it. I kept a copy of the rather amusing emails between
Liane Liar, Mr. Greenspun, an MIT StopIt staffer, and myself for a
while...I read them occassionally for amusement, but have deleted
them. While we're on the subject, Sysman has proposed several of
these "agreements" between myself and powers-that-be...obsessive
perhaps? some need to be "friends" with everyone? For the record,
Bruce, I doubt I could ever be friends with someone with your
demonstrated lack of social conscience.
"Prepare!"
"Prepare! It's going to be bad!"
"Prepare! I have 30 years experience! I know!!"
"Prepare!"
[000101]
"Oops, I was wrong, but I'm not sorry I told you to waste all
that time, money, and energy - or for adding to your stress."
In sum, when 'Andy Ray' began posting at the Hysterium, I was
already a polly. I posted some of the engineers' report in one post.
Here is one response. Mere facts stood little chance of
interfering with the zealous fervor of those who would proclaim "Why
I know what I know" (conspicuous in it's absence from Yourdon's
website lately...).
I asked for the model #, manufacturer, and procedure for testing
for Y2k-related failure at the Hysterium. After all, logic had been
attempted and rejected. Perhaps revealing to those enamoured with the
prospect of "watching all those pollies die" or perhaps, "picking
them off when they approach my door" that they, in fact, had no
evidence to support their fantasies, would. Not one response to the
question. Lots of responses, mind you, but none addressing the
criteria. This, one hoped, would have worked (in fact, I received
several email responses to this and a post like it - perhaps it
did work for some). But for others, sadly,...
...the meme was in control. All opposed were summarily dismissed
and/or censored. The truth is this was presented before the non-
event. It didn't meet the criteria for acceptable posts - that
singular criteria being: "It must agree with the meme."
Was I angry about it? At times, yes, and frustrated. It's is
frustrating to present the truth (to those who claim they are looking
for it) and have the moderators allow blatant violations of their own
supposed "rules," while inventing new rules and manufacturing
evidence that I have trespassed.
At times it angered me. When the moderators refused to pretend to
enforce any sense of fairness, I acted. I initiated nothing. I simply
copied the tactics employed by the lapdogs the moderators allowed to
malign my posts. For example, when script was posted in one of my
messages, I posted it at the DeBunking Forum. I responded to most
censorship in the same way - turning it against those who would
permit it.
At no time, did I wish to see the Hysterium cease to exist, and
was saddened when it became inactive. Good things always come out of
free discourse and debate, if true moderation is exercised by
the moderators - as opposed to the moderators participating in the
debate and seeing to it that only one paradigm prevails - if not by
logic, then by any means necessary.
The truth was out there prior to the event: The was never a reason
to prepare.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 24, 2000.
Andy Ray:
I'm sorry that you, Charlie, Doc, and so many others were doomers
regarding Y2k at some point in your lives. HOWEVER, there are some
here [like myself] who were NEVER doomers and didn't have to undergo
the flip-flop of Erik Hoffer's True Believers.
In other threads, you've whined about threads being attacked and not
cleaned up [insinuating that OTFR was discriminating against you.]
Gee, Andy, MY threads have never been attacked, and I was NEVER a
doomer.
I think it might be a good idea to question why, exactly, you fell
for the doomer philosophy in the first place rather than chastise
those who fell for the same philosophy after YOUR conversion.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 24, 2000.
Anita,
I think my arguments against the meme were strengthened by my
experience of having fell for it - if even for a short while. I
believe one derives more from someone who has experienced what they
are experiencing than from someone who has not, but merely offers
theoretical advice.
Which brings me to the statement about your posts never being
attacked...
Courteous Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 24, 2000.
Took a weekend trip to another state. Some prime Real Estate with
"for sale" signs. Many, along road "for sale" vehicles, along the
way. Saw more than one stip mall, stripped of it's stores. Nothing
major taking it's place. Seems economy must be bad. You might see it
too, if you look. Not to be alarmed, same thing has happened in years
past. Just keep a watchful eye, for those in need, and please offer,
what you can give up.
-- Hate to be redundant (bad things happento@otherpeople.com), September 24, 2000.
The other day on Dr. Laura's show, she said she went to Hollywood
where all the plush shops were. She was surprised to see so many
empty stores with lease signs in the window. She thought the economy
was good and she wondered what happened to all the stores and
shoppers. Dr. Laura really ought to get out more often.
-- Wal Mart Tart (WalMartTartt@WalMartTartttt.com), September 24, 2000.
ANITA...FOR GET YOUR "PRECONCEPTIONS" BASED ON YOUR
****USUAL******** SHALLOW**** SO-CALLED "THINKING"
...........WAKE UP ONCE AND FOR ALL. CONTRARY TO THE **PROPAGANDA***
HERE,
I WAS NEVER......A DOOMER. NEVER.
FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE GROWTH OF THE DOOMZIES LEAD BY NORTH AND
YOURDON.......I OPPOSED THEM AS DID PATRICIA AND PEOPLE LIKE DON
TAYLOR (DOC).
SINCE YOU DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN DE JAGER'S LIST......I WAS THE ONE
WHO EXPOSED NORTH ON IT AS A 30 YEAR FAILED DOOMER. HE WAS THE FIRST
OF MANY INCLUDING YOURDON WHO RETREATED AFTER DICK MILLS, DON TAYLOR
AND MYSELF ASKED HIM TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIRST EDITION OF
HIS BOOK
SO GET THAT 'IDEA' OUT OF YOUR HEAD. NEVER CAN YOU FIND A "PREDICTION
OF DOOMSVILLE ABOUT ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE COMPUTER/BUSINESS VENUE AND
NEVER.....NEVER....DID I OR ANY OF THE NON-DOOMERS I WORKED
WITH EVER...........EVER.......MAKE ABSURD PREDICTIONS OF SOME
SILLY.........."CHAIN REACTION" OR "CASCADE EFFECT" OR "DOMINO
THEORY".
THAT..........WAS ALL GARY NORTH, HYATT AND
YOURDON
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 24, 2000.
off HTML
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 24, 2000.
CPR, now you know that is not true. You were very, VERY frightened by
Y2K. The evidence is all over your website. You were SO frightened
in fact, that you developed a full-time obsession with denying that
anything could go wrong. Your ego went into a full-blown overinflated
delusion of denial in an attempt to alleviate the REAL deep-seated
fear which existed within your Id (your subconscious mind). You
didn't put on this show for anyone else, you did it for yourself,
pretending in your conscious mind that you knew what would happen.
You still haven't convinced anyone, not even yourself, and that is why
you are still aggressively trying to fulfill this delusion. The only
solution for you to escape this neurotic behavior is to admit that you
are human and you were afraid, your delusion is not real. Judging by
the way you have behaved for the last couple of years, I would guess
that you were more afraid than anyone else we are aware of. You must
be honest with yourself about this, and accept that you are only
human and as vulnerable as we all are.
-- cyber freud (your.fear@is.human), September 24, 2000.
Well, CPR, didn't you just critique my credentials as a polly a week
ago? Something about "when did you become a Polly . . . 3/15/00? or
something like that? Perhaps you should be a little more careful if
you are going to take such great offense when people call you an "ex-
doomer"
As to Andy's suggestion that you could help everyone's personal
development by explaining how you both got things right, I can only
suppose you both are fishing for a debate. After all, about 99% of
the population got it right. What's to explain?
Cozumel really was very nice over New Year 2000
-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), September 24, 2000.
I think Anita's the coolest. She was a pure Polly. You're all just
wannabes. Ex-doomers turned pollies fighting among each other for who
turned polly first. CPR beats AR by 2 weeks, but AR beats E.H. by 3
months. But wait, E.H. beats CPR on the scale, he never went up to 8.
AR beats them all on the scale. But still all wannabes, cuz they
weren't pollys when polly was fashionable. Anita, now that is a hot
polly! wooooheee! She was so polly and avant-guarde, she didn't even
know what "Y2K" meant until 1999. She used to call it "CDC" or "roll-
over".
But none of them beat the doomers for coolness. Doomers were
competing for who was the most. Jack "y2k can't be fixed" was a 12 on
the 1-10 scale, now that's kewl! We used to call him the Doomster.
Milne would foam at the mouth from jealousy. He thought he was so hot
himself, but he never was called the Doomster, no matter how hard he
tried.
Me, well, I never made it passed 5. Oh, maybe 6 on a day I tried real
hard to get scared. But still, I remained a pathetic wannabe.
-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 25, 2000.
"Doc" Don Taylor
Although Don has great strengths in details, he is even better at
the "big picture" and really enjoys helping people (whence the
nickname "Doc," chosen by a client). These were not suitable
personality characteristics at his corporate jobs, so he moved to the
smaller business arena, where he has specialized in helping owners and
managers understand and better use technology.
Since 1996, Don has focused on the year 2000 "digital disease",
providing management assistance services that help businesses reduce
their risks from year 2000 problems. He has worked with enterprises
from New Jersey to California and outside the US ranging from million
dollar firms to municipalities to Fortune 10 subsidiaries. Don is an
active member of several international business and Y2k communities
(Y2k practitioners, Y2k law, Y2k in healthcare, Y2k in water,
marketing, retail, international business); having published magazine
and newspaper articles, appeared on TV, spoken on the radio, and given
presentations on the subject, he is widely recognized as a proactive
voice of positive action. He is a registered Y2k speaker, a founding
member of the CPSR (Computer Profesionals for Social Responsibility)
Y2k Working Group and implemented "Hampton Roads Y2k Action Day".
-- (FunnyBubbles@$$$.$$$), September 25, 2000.
-- (off@off.off), September 25, 2000.
Lots of responses, mind you, but none addressing the criteria.
Bullshit. I don't have the time to go find your lame thread, so why
don't you post the link? I'm sure you still have it.
People gave you dozens of examples. The Motorola page comes to mind.
It listed several, more that 100 I think, real-time clocks that were
not, and WOULD NEVER BE, Y2K compliant. It listed the part numbers,
and a detailed decsription of the testing procedures.
But you just ignored them all.
-- You are (full@of.shit), September 25, 2000.
Andy Ray:
So, essentially, you're saying that reformed drug abusers are in a
better position to proselytize on the consequences of drug use than
those who made a conscious decision not to use drugs.
Charlie:
I didn't subscribe to deJager's list. I seem to recall a fee
involved. I DID have an internet friend who sent me daily offerings.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 25, 2000.
.....NEVER....DID I OR ANY OF THE NON-DOOMERS I WORKED WITH
EVER...........EVER.......MAKE ABSURD PREDICTIONS OF SOME
SILLY.........."CHAIN REACTION" OR "CASCADE EFFECT" OR "DOMINO
THEORY".
THAT..........WAS ALL GARY NORTH, HYATT AND YOURDON
The idea was not limited to, and almost certainly did not
originate with North, Hyatt and Yourdon, CPR. The Senate Y2K
committee mentioned the possibility, for example, in its Sept. 1999
report.
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/documents/100dayrpt/exec_sum_100days.pdf
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001Rwk
The Committee is greatly concerned about the international Y2K
picture. Several countries of strategic and economic importance to
the U.S. are severely behind in Y2K remediation efforts. Regions of
the world of most concern to the Committee are Eastern Europe,
Africa, and parts of Asia and South America. When considering
strategic and economic factors, and the status of Y2K remediation
efforts within specific countries, the Committee's greatest concerns
lie with China, Russia, Italy, and several of the countries from
which the U. S. imports oil.
Severe long and short term disruptions to supply chains are likely to
occur. Such disruptions may cause a low to moderate downturn in the
economy, particularly in those industries that depend on foreign
suppliers. In addition, there may be a request for humanitarian
relief from developing countries that have not addressed the Y2K
problem.
-- the rest (of@the.story), September 25, 2000.
Fascinating. Just fascinating. I'm getting some popcorn and just
taking it all in....
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 25, 2000.
Actually, the "domino theory" and "cascade effect" and "it's all
interconnected" and "it's systemic" originated LONG before any 1999
(or any other) Senate Report; and it DID come from North, Yourdon,
etc. (Think about it this way: When was the last time -- or the
first, for that matter -- any part of the Government actually had an
original thought?)
But it's neither here nor there.
Charlie, I can't for the life of me fathom why you persist with
this. Bottom line is that you were right, and a bunch of other
people who mean absolutely nothing to you (as you constantly
remind us), were wrong. They got over it; why can't you?
You or Andy post some "doomzie" or "meme" stuff; some anonymous
posters then post (for approximately the eight hundredth time) the
same stupid outdated Senate report. You then SCREAM HTML at anyone
who dares to disagree with you. Some other anonymous poster(s) then
impersonate you. OTFR has a freaking mess to clean up, with all the
HTML madness.
So what has all this done for you? for me? for any of "us"?
Absolutely nothing.
BFD.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 25, 2000.
AND JUST WHERE THE **HELL** DID THE CLUELESS "CONGRESS" GET
THE "INFORMATION" ABOUT THE "POTENTIAL PROBLEMS" ????
YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES TO GUESS:
A. Yourdon??
B. NORTH. ??
C. Hyatt ??
d. LORD DUMBO ??
E. Mauldin (Garee Duct Tape's business partner)??
F. Craig "I have the gold right here" "Churchesnet.com" "Y2knet.com"
Smith
G. Bruce Webster (Y2k book copied from EY's BS which itself followed
the outline of GAREEE DUCT TAPE)??? (Not a good guess this one.
He "modified" almost as soon as he published and switched to the
Yardeni "Gonna be a big economic impact" ( !!! NOT !!!).
F. GIGA AND Gartner? They had "modified" before 1/1999.
G. ALL THE ABOVE AND MORE.
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 25, 2000.
Take this "in", King of Spittle. How TB I and the FUD really
worked
LINK to new
Academic study
http://www.aleae.com/rollover/internet.html
-- cpr (buytexas@swbell.net), September 25, 2000.
Patricia,
I think that the reason cpr keeps posting his "stuff" is because deep
down he loves us all, even the last doomer. If he didn't post
this "stuff", no one would talk to him, so he does it out of his need
for interaction with others.
Sheeple
-- (Sheeple@Greener.Pastures), September 25, 2000.
Smarty:
I always loved CDC. Let's see now, that could be
Center Disease Control or Century
Date Change. My favorite word of all [seen EVERYWHERE
on the net in discussions of Y2k] was paradigm. That one HAD to fool
people who were raised with phonics.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 25, 2000.
Patricia:
You have to realize that CPR actually called Y2K WRONG, in the sense
he expected everyone to get so (needlessly) worried about Y2K that
they would quit their jobs and cause the world to go to hell in a
handbasket. So, CPR stopped working as a realtor, and lost two years
of income to devote himself full-time to fighting his holy war
against the ***DOOMZIES***.
And it was all needless. The world at large barely concerned itself
with Y2K. CPR's ridiculous frothing that he called "de-bunking"
convinced no one of anything. CPR definitely called Y2K wrong, and
it has cost him dearly.
One day ... maybe ... CPR will admit this simple truth, and
will "bottom out". He will pick himself up, dust himself off, and go
back to trying to earn a living. Until then, this forum provides his
only outlet to continue his delusion that he saved the world.
(This popcorn needs more butter. Excuse me...)
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 25, 2000.
Anita, I, too, thought he did a great job. Kind of nailed every
point quite well. I'm not sure he ever set up the links, though. I
remember when he sent me the URL to "proof-read" it, that was one of
the points I made. He said (at the time) he still had to link them.
Heh, he's probably lost interest now :-)
Sheeple, good to "see" you this fine morning (it's about 64
degrees here, and it's simply beautiful -- as I was driving to work I
saw two hot-air balloons hovering over the mountains). I knew I
should have gone for the simple answer. Oh well.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 25, 2000.
(Need more coffee.....)
Uh, Anita, that response to you (above) was to your post on
another thread :-)
(King, would you please pass the popcorn? I think I'm going to
sit the rest of this one out; at least until I'm fully caffeinated.)
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 25, 2000.
Anita, add "count down clock" to CDC.
KOS, nah. CPR will find another crusade before he makes a real
living. He's a crusader.
-- (smarty@wannabe.one), September 25, 2000.
(Here ya go, Patricia. Did I mention it's from my Y2K stash? Need
some more?; I've got about a year's worth. How about toilet paper?
Did you say you drink coffee?? Hoo-boy, how many cans of Folgers can
you carry in your trunk?...)
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 25, 2000.
Patricia: I think we need to quaff with Mike for that one.
KOS: Mike included Just a Number in his piece as an "amusing
archive of feedback." Feedback in this context indicated mail
received from folks reading Just a Number. I don't think it
was intended to provide any credibility to his piece.
[I just thought I'd confuse everyone by continuing a discussion of
another thread HERE.]
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 25, 2000.
Anita: Well, you certainly have confused me. What the HELL are you
talking about??????!!!!!
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 25, 2000.
Anita: "quaff" -- yes, we must. (You know I went and looked up
that post of his again; and there it was....your post of "We must go
quaffing with this person".)
King, I have a small(ish) pick-up truck that can hold ALOT of
Folger's, TP, popcorn, etc. BTW, just how much is a "year's worth of
popcorn"? I mean, how does one calculate that? One bag per day? I
always wondered about that.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 25, 2000.
Patricia,
If you're calculating coffee portions for Flint, one truckload will
not last long.
-- flora (***@__._), September 25, 2000.
...the meme was in control. All opposed were summarily dismissed
and/or censored. The truth is this was presented before the non-
event. It didn't meet the criteria for acceptable posts - that
singular criteria being: "It must agree with the meme."
Was I angry about it? At times, yes, and frustrated.
"Andy Ray," be more specific. Tell us and show us what it is exactly
you posted last year that should have convinced any rational person
that Y2k could not affect them in anyway.
What I remember most about your posts from July of last year until
when you were banned in November is that you continually whined about
how TB2000 was moderated, similar to the way you've continually
whined this year about how OTFR moderates this forum.
This is your big opportunity, Andy Ray. Show us one or more of your
insightful and documented pieces from last year which made it clear
nothing was going to happen.
Be specific. Please.
-- Anonymous the way ("Andy@Ray".is), September 25, 2000.
smarty,
The suspense is KILLING me.
"CPR will find another crusade before he makes a real living. He's a
crusader."
What color is his cape?
-- flora (***@__._), September 25, 2000.
Flora:
Humorous comment there on Flint's coffee consumption, but [rumor has
it that] a truckload of firewood wouldn't last him a month.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), September 25, 2000.
flora, I'm not sure it would last all that long for me either.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), September 25, 2000.
In fact, though I've never mentioned this before, I did the exact
same thing that Mr. Poole did - I posted an "anonymous report." I did
not, however, ever "out" myself. And, the information I posted was
entered into congressional record by Mr. Bruce Webster, and quoted by
Mr. Ed Yourdon and Mr. Gary North. It was never checked for accuracy,
and was completely and verifiably inaccurate. It was accepted because
it fit the meme, and "anonymous" was heralded for his courage for
coming forward with such crucial data at the risk of job loss,
etc.
LOL, Andy Ray, incredible, but *sigh* so typical of TB2000. Y2K
rumors and myths were devoured, and facts were spat upon there, for
the most part. But your story is very, very interesting...can you
link to the post you are referring to? And did this make up tale
actually make it into the Congressional Record, or was it just given
in testimony? So funny....this sounds worthy of a magazine
article...tell us more!
-- FactFinder (FactFinder@bzn.com), September 25, 2000.
Just out of curiosity, how come you de-bunkers/de-bunkerettes never
tried to smear Bruce Webster? He also was a "mis-leader doomzie",
had a Y2K prep book, etc. Was his background too clean?
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), September 25, 2000.
Yes his background was too clean. How could we ever make fun of the
guy who wrote Webster's Dictionary?
-- butt nugget (catsbutt@umailme.com), September 25, 2000.
And it was all needless.
The world at large barely concerned itself with Y2K. CPR's
ridiculous frothing that he called "de-bunking" convinced no one of
anything.
KOS,
Here I completely disagree with you.
I believe there was a period of a few months in the debate - early
in 1999 - when the pendulum could have swung very decidedly in the
opposite direction. Further, I believe Mr. Reuben's efforts affected
this decision point.
Anita,
I am stating that one becomes more familiar with a mindset, and on
a different level (in my opinion), if one experiences the mindset
personally, as opposed to one not experiencing that particular
mindset. It's very simple really - perhaps I am over-complicating it.
I have heard an American-ism that is familiar - (paraphrased) "don't
judge one's motives until you have walked in one's shoes."
If your posts had been defaced along with others, and the others
had been repaired, you would likely (and justifiably) believe the
moderator was treating you unfairly. This would not be "whining," any
more than my justified complaints are "whining." Personally, it
bothers me a lot less than I indicate. I do know how to stir up
certain antic-prone doomers, however - and I feel justified in so
doing when treated differently. Call it a "response" to
the "message."
My new policy is to not address trolls - especially cowardly
trolls. If your email address is fake, you do not deserve a response -
at least not from me.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 26, 2000.
Hey Andy,
You have been asked to post the link to your manufacturer/model
thread. Nice time to start a new policy about ignoring the anon here.
But FactFinder is hardly anon.
What's the matter, shithead? Afraid to post it? Afraid that the
people here will see you for what you really are, a lying, whiney,
gutless, chickenshit, know-it-all jerkoff?
Put up or shut up, asshole.
Or maybe I'll take the time to go find it myself.
-- You are (full@of.shit), September 26, 2000.
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012uW
One chip
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brian says there are a lot of Y2K remediation professionals here.
Could any of you produce the manufacturer's name, part number, and a
specific procedure for duplicating the procedure to verify that an
"embedded chip" failed a Y2K-compliance test? (My company will
purchase the chip and verify those results...). Also, I would like to
know the specific applications/platforms in which the tainted IC is
currently operating, which I will also verify.
All in the interests of good science. Thank you in advance.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com),
July 06, 1999
Answers
Okay, proof-read, then post!
:)
I am attempting to locate one of the one hundred million embedded ICs
that will not pass a Y2K compliance test. To do this, I need:
1. The IC manufacturer's name;
2. The IC's part number;
3. The procedure utilised to test the IC.
Again, thanks in advance,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com),
July 06, 1999.
Oh, and I would like a list of some of the applications and platforms
on which the IC is operating currently, so as to obtain some sense of
impact in case of failure.
Polly wants a...chip!
:)
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com),
July 06, 1999.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Andy,
Every self respecting troll gave up on this attack at least a year
ago. Shows us how much you respect yourself. You might even want to
consult the IEE pages which are profuse with examples of embedded
system failures.
[Oh, I see......you want to play the semantics game, eg, chip versus
system. Andy, that's a sign of a sick mind. Stop playing games with
serious subjects, Andy. Take your meds, fellow. The boys in the
white coats will be by shortly.]
Regards,
-- Anti (Andy@notroll.day),
July 06, 1999.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
-- (+@+.+), September 26, 2000.
Andy, I try very hard to be fair and taking no sides. If I have
missed a post from you that was defaced, it's simply that I didn't
see it and it was not brought to my attention. I don't look at every
thread that is posted here. Some days I have more time for checking
the forum, at others I don't. I remember most of the
threads that were defaced with gifs last week were started by CPR.
After 2 or 3 such threads that I fixed, I didn't bother checking
from who they were, I just fixed them, as many as I had time to check
that day and then I logged off.
Also, on days I don't have time to read the forum, I'll at least try
to read my email to see if someone reported a problem requiring my
attention. You're always welcome like everybody else to bring a
problem post or thread to my attention via email.
As an aside, you haven't answered Factfinder's question about which
"annonymous report" you wrote that was used by North and Yourdon. Can
you provide a link on the old forum where you posted it? This
incident is worthy of its own thread started by you, IMO, to bring
the whole thing to light and give us another insight into this "meme"
of original TB2K.
OTFR
-- Old Time Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), September 26, 2000.
OTFR,
Two posts have been defaced. One of which you were notified by at
least two emails - but, who knows? Perhaps you will take this
opportunity to rectify the situation and demonstrate some
fairness.
Quotably Quoted #6 was posted by an imposter.
Though I'm not asking you to email me the IP of the imposter, I'd
appreciate it greatly if you treated it in the same manner as you
treated this imposter's post.
Heroes and Cowards suffered a gif attack, as
well.
I understand (from reading Mr. Greenspun's guide) that this
software is database-based. Would a simple SQL query executed against
the database would locate posts similarly attacked?
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 26, 2000.
Andy, I hope in all sincerity we can clear up any problems or
confusion you may have regarding the way I manage this forum.
"Two posts have been defaced. One of which you were notified by at
least two emails - but, who knows? Perhaps you will take this
opportunity to rectify the situation and demonstrate some fairness."
I've gone back and checked my inbox, and I only see one email from
you since the start of this forum. I've kept every single email from
anyone who has ever emailed me. I don't delete them because I know I
might need to go back on any of them (as in this case.)
"Quotably Quoted #6 was posted by an imposter. Though I'm not asking
you to email me the IP of the imposter, I'd appreciate it greatly if
you treated it in the same manner as you treated this imposter's
post."
Quotably Quoted #6, and "this imposter's post" (which is a thread
started by an imposter of Diane Squire), were both made on the same
day, May 12. I received that single email from you regarding
"Quotably Quoted" asking me if I could do anything about it, and I
responded by adding my post that the thread was started by an
imposter. Diane Squire had been the target of constant imposter post
who signed her email address and spammed her mail box (which she
already had emailed me and complain about.) Back then, I was not as
familiar with the Lusenet software as I am now, and to help Diane to
stop her inbox spamming, I edited out her email address of imposter
posts. Diane had told me that she would absolutely not be posting on
my forum, and since I knew her IP (from emails) I could indeed verify
that any posts with her name wasn't hers. After the incidents of that
day, May 12 (trolls impostering you and Diane) I found out that I
could easily and simply remove email addresses from the " email
notification" feature. And in your case, I could not until after
I had an email from you to verify the IP's. As soon as you wrote me,
I posted that it was an imposter and not you. If your complaint today
is that I did not edit out your email address from the imposter
troll, then I apologize and I am at fault. In hindsight, I see where
you see a difference in treatment between you and Diane S. But from
my standpoint, I was responding to two different complaints from
people who wrote me at two different times. If you wish me to edit
out your email address from that old thread still, I will do so, just
let me know.
"Heroes and Cowards suffered a gif attack, as well."
I do not see a gif attack on that thread. I am on a Windows machine,
and I understand that on Mac machines, even if the background has
been set to #ffffff on the first post, it can still be over taken by
subsequent posts. If that is the case, then perhaps you could tell me
which post exactly is causing the problem.
"I understand (from reading Mr. Greenspun's guide) that this software
is database-based. Would a simple SQL query executed against the
database would locate posts similarly attacked?"
Yes I could query the IP of the attacker and check all his/her posts,
but that is time consuming as well. And still I could miss some
threads with disrupting gifs, as explained with the Mac OS situation.
The best and fastest way to help yourself and me is to write to me
directly, giving me as much info as possible (the url of the thread,
which post or poster exactly is the problem, and why you think it is
a problem/your reasons for wanting it deleted or edited. I make my
moderator decisions from there on a case by case basis.)
I hope this clears up any issues you have in regards to my moderation
philosophy, but if not, please feel free to write me via email.
OTFR
-- Old Time Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), September 26, 2000.
I do not see a gif attack on that thread. I am on a Windows machine,
and I understand that on Mac machines, even if the background has
been set to #ffffff on the first post, it can still be over taken by
subsequent posts. If that is the case, then perhaps you could tell me
which post exactly is causing the problem.
That's interesting. From a Windows machine, you should actually see
the background since it was posted as the first response to the
thread. I tried to fix it later on, but it still shows up for most
Windows users. Perhaps there is a Windows browser that behaves
similarly to Mac IE 5.0 with regards to background tags.
The post in question was the first response. It was posted
by "mr@teal.man" and included the tag (body
background="http://SPACE1.homestead.com/files/teal.jpg).
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 26, 2000.
Hmmm, it's bizzarre. I'm using IE 4.0, version 4.72.2106.8, and with
it I don't see the teal background. I fired up Netscape Communicator
4.73 to view that thread, and still I could not see the teal
background. I then looked at the settings on NS's preferences, and I
had "automatically load images" disabled. I check it, reload, THEN I
see the background.
I know I have images set to load on IE because they do load up with
the page. But no teal background on that particular thread. So
indeed, it does seem that different browsers on Windows will handle
this forum differently also, and not just Macs.
I will leave Andy's "Heroes and Cowards" thread untouched for now, to
give time to Andy and those reading this thread to check their
browsers behavior is they want to (to verify what I'm saying.)I'll
fix it later tonight or tomorrow when I log back on.
Now that I see more clearly how complicated this problem can be, I
suggest to everyone to report to me directly via email anytime such
an attack occurs.
OTFR
-- Old Time Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), September 26, 2000.
Hmm and everyone, while pondering this problem some more, it just
occured to me that it might not have anything to do with the version
of the browsers, or even the platform, but everything to do with the
cash; i.e., since you already had viewed the thread and hence loaded
the disrupting gif with it, when you attempted to fix it later on,
because you had that gif in your cash (and also people that had
already viewed the thread before your fix), it just loaded up with
the refresh. Since I viewed this particular thread AFTER your fix,
that could be why I don't see the teal background.
It could depend how each individual's cash is configured also.
OTFR
-- Old Time Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), September 26, 2000.
OTFR,
Thank you for your response. Having been misunderstood throughout
most of the debate on Y2k, I have become quite the paranoid
skeptic.
In answer to your (and FactFinder's) earlier question about a link
to the "misinformation" I quoted anonymously - which was later quoted
before Congress by Mr. Webster - I respectfully decline.
After a couple of death threats over the Y2k issue - one delivered
in such a way as to remove any doubt the person could, in fact,
locate me personally - I constructed Andy Ray. Not quite ever
anonymous enough to be a true anonymous person, but not as easily
traceable. And, I have repeatedly misdirected any and all questions
regarding race, religion, location, and age. Even those whom I
consider friends have been misled thus. It is not a matter of trust -
it is a statistical fact that the only true secrets are owned in
singularity.
If one has an active email box, I do not consider one a troll - or
completely anonymous. It's a distinction I make for my purposes only,
and I'm certain you can appreciate it. You probably prefer to control
the means of communication and access some (one or two come to
mind) have with you, too.
Again, thank you for your response.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), September 26, 2000.
Hmm and everyone, while pondering this problem some more, it
just occured to me that it might not have anything to do with the
version of the browsers, or even the platform, but everything to do
with the cash
I'm not so sure that's what's happening in my case. You can
force a redownload of a page from the server rather than from
the cache by holding down (I think) Ctrl when refreshing on
Windows machines and "option" when refreshing on Macs. I try
this and get the same result as I always have. The Mac browser
shows a white page, then it changes to teal, then back to white.
The Windows browser just shows teal.
Also, whenever I would "fix" a page on the Mac, I would see
immediate results leading me to believe the problem was really
fixed. If I was still loading the page from cache, I would think I
would still see the problem.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 26, 2000.
Hmm and everyone, while pondering this problem some more, it just
occured to me that it might not have anything to do with the version
of the browsers, or even the platform, but everything to do with the
cash
OTFR, interesting additional points about browser settings. Another
such setting which can affect display of background tags is custom
background colors.... But testing this background thingee again on
various browsers and ruling out any effect from personal settings, I
am STILL getting differences in this behavior on different browsers
and platforms.
Perhaps there is a Windows browser that behaves similarly to Mac
IE 5.0 with regards to background tags
hmm, yes. With IE 4.0 (version 4.72.3612.1713) I am getting the same
behavior as you (OTFR) did on your version of IE 4.0 (I do NOT see
the teal). (And this is with having cleared cache and history; set
browser to load URLs from server each time; auto-load images, and do
not use custom background colors.)
I just tested IE 2.0 on Windows NT4 Workstation (SP6), and with that
I do not see the teal background, either. (It WAS still there in the
Heroes and Cowards thread as of the tests). ...
Curious can of worms we've opened up.... latest version of IE (5.5)
for Windows and an early version of IE (3.01) for the Mac, and so far
all Netscapes, behave the same with this feature; while others
don't... There is no pattern or possible underlying rationale that I
can see why it's so. (I should be surprised at this??) Acourse I
haven't tested anywhere near EVERY browser nor each BUILD 
.
Thanks hmm... in Netscape 4 on Windows, it is a Shift-Reload (Option-
Reload for the Mac) to fetch the latest version of the URL regardless
of how your cache is set to fetch it.
-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), September 26, 2000.
Debbbie, you may have tested a fraction in your own arena, but you
never traveled the many miles some others did in seeking out the
"expert testimony". They all fell short. I read them all, and sought
other advise. Fools were abound, and incompetent in the political
arena on this subject matter. I saw them, I read them, I have their
ineptness in print. For shame.... 99 rolls of toilet tissue on the
wall, 99 rolls of tissue. take them down, you get the picture.
-- Hate to be redundant (badthingshappento@goodpeople.com), September 26, 2000.
Andy, I understand your wish to remain safely anonymous. If you have
another moderation issue in the future, I encourage you to email me
to discuss it.
Debbie, you are right. I have tested my browsers again and they do
behave very differently with the same settings. I have set them both
to override the webpage fonts, colors and backgrounds with my own
choices of white background, black text and size 12 Times font. IE
4.0 Windows overrides everything (Andy and CPR's type looks like
everybody else's), but on Netscape 4.7, Andy's font is still in teal,
although in Times and not bold, while CPR is still in large fonts.
The background remains white on both browsers.
I would suggest to everyone to tinker with your browsers settings for
fonts, background and colors to gain control over what you see on
this forum. Some browsers, like Netscape 4.0+ give the option of
making different user profiles and one can choose which one to use
when starting up the browser. Make one titled "Spinoff" with options
set to override all fonts etc. with your own settings and not load
images automatically.
Thanks Debbie and Hmm for the tip on the Shift-Reload command, that's
one I didn't know about and is very handy.
OTFR
-- Old Time Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), September 27, 2000.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ