The "rules" (and by rules, I mean the rules of expected behaviour for pollies, not doomers) stated the following:
I HAVE RETURNED after a bit of an enforced furlough. the spousal unit offered me the choice of logging all the way out for 10 days or moving the computer to some other plug in some other domicile. I took the propper choice (no the snail mail address remains the same).
And I am back with an attitude.
Having spent the last ten or so days in the real world, and having seen the incredible disconect going on from an other vantage point, AND having had a chance to REALLY LOOK at the callendar, I have made some changes in my attitude.
1) DON'T WASTE MY TIME I AIN'T GOTS A LOT!! This goes for EVERYONE as we haven't got a lot of time and it seems to be running faster and faster.
2) CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION or get the F### OUT of the WAY!!! Name calling and other disruptive stuff WILL VANISH without a second thought. If you KNOW YOUR post didn't do any of that and in fact was in suport of the target and wonder why YOUR post went away TOO, it's because the OTHER post went away and parallelism needs to be kept (errr I use the term parallelism to mean thread integrity, so that the easily confused of us don't get moreso).
3) I AIN'T GONNA WASTE TIME and bandwith EXPLAININ' NUTTIN' out here on the forum. THAT detracts from the focus we ALL NEED TO HAVE.
4) THE TIME FOR DEBATE on WHETHER or NOT is PAST! I MAY be convinced otherwise but I am REAL tempted to remove this type of post. I am NOT a total brick head (just Italian-Dutch and a Taurus) so if you can convince me with a cogent argumment, I'll back off on this one. BUT it's got to be COGENT, and any reference to balance, access fairness etc will be rejected. TRY to give me a good reason to back off from this one, I would LOVE to but.... right now I don't see the percentage..
5) IF YOU WANT MY ATTENTION, it would be best to use my personal e-mail and NOT the general sysops address as I DO NOT HAVE TIME to check there often. MOST of you know what my address is but for those of you fortunate enough to have not crossed my path:
address is
rienzoo@en.com
YUP!! I have returned with an atitude.
Chuck
SYSOP # 3
I-AM-A-NUMBER
-- sysop#3 (I-AM-a-number@sysops.R.us), November 19, 1999
All sounds well and good, correct? Then why was the title of this post (posted below) editted? Which of the "rules" (new or old) did it violate?
I will make yet another prediction. Neither of the preceding questions will be directly and honestly answered by any doomer. They will seek to excuse and justify their leadership - as they continue to do.
In it's entirety, with selected responses:
WARNING: AndyRay's SPIN & OPINION: New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective...
greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The JoAnne Effect was supposed to strike throughout the previous year. It was predicted to "create chaos" and be "the wake-up call for the CEO's who have not yet grasped what the programmers have done to them."
It turned out to be more like the snooze button...
People have been fighting over the Y2K issue since it's inception. Some of it has not been nice. There are information technology professionals about that do not believe Y2K is going to have devastating effects on your life. You will find a few here (though this is a christian religious site). They are often derided and called by a name that I personally bear with a particular pride: Polly.
You will also find people (most here, in fact) who disgaree with the Polly scenarios, and believe the events surrounding Y2K will range from serious interruptions to total catastrophy. They are called Doomers.
There is a surprising consensus occuring as the date draws nearer. It is exhibited in several ways. For instance, last year you could separate the Doomers from the Pollys by asking whether or not they believed their power utility would fail where they live. Now, a significant portion of Doomers acknowledge that power will either remain on, or fluctuate in a manageable fashion - as opposed to failing and remaining off for a period measured in days (weeks, or months). (See Your prediction please: Do you believe your local electric utility will deliver uninterrupted power through the 991231 - 000101 roll-over?)
There are some important things to consider these last few weeks of 1999:
-
You will read that it is now too late to do anything to prepare at this stage. This is false for two reasons: 1) The people making these claims are expecting things to be much worse than Y2K could ever have been. 2) You can, if you believe you have a need, prepare in some way. (I am personally not doing anything different for Y2K...I had an opportunity to purchase a generator for one of my cottages that could actually utilise it, and turned it down because a) installing a generator now would send a confusing message to those I have talked about regarding Y2K; and b) I believe generators will be very inexpensive after the first of the year - I could probably get a great deal on one from a local Doomer...)
-
You will read a lot of fighting. This is an unfortunate by-product of disagreement about any issue. Some of it is petty. Among the moderates in both camps, however, I sense a refreshing respect.
-
You will read that the worst is yet to come. In my opinion, the worst has already occurred. Why do I believe this? Companies have been experiencing Y2K programming issues for years - and they have fixed them as the failures occurred.
-
You will read scary predictions from "experts." Well, there's a link at the top of this message to an "expert"'s opinion regarding the JoAnne Effect. These effects occurred, but they had so little noticable impact that I often refer to it as the JoAnne Non-Effect. These "experts" all have something to sell you. Some of them are selling books and dried foods, while others are attempting to get you to buy into their philosophy or religion.
As is the case in much of life, calmer minds prevail. If you are in a state of panic because of what you have read or viewed on television, you should examine the other side of the issue closely. There are gaps in the logic Doomers applied to reach their conclusions. The few that have revised their position in light of the ever-changing facts have been met with derision. In the end, the machines will respond in ways dictated by the laws of physics and their programme's code - how we as individuals respond is a matter of individual choice.
Patient Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999
Answers
Response to New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective...
Mr. Ray, I believe that your headline is mislabeled. Yours is THE perspective as it is the majority view or spin I have head in the mainstream media for quite some time. Those expecting major problems are in the minority and are the OTHER perspective.
-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), November 22, 1999.
Response to New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective...
Folks, if you are new to Y2K, please do your research and make your
own decision.
Andy Ray DOES have an agenda himself, he is writing a book on what he
considers to be the irrational reaction to the possibilities of Y2K
problems.
Most of us here do expect problems, ranging from moderate to
devastating. Very few of us are hoping for them.
There have been a number of "failed" predictions. So what? We will
all start to know in *39* days. Past performance is no indication of
future results, as they say in the investing industry.
If you are new here, welcome. Things can get a bit heated, but even
the folks like Andy Ray are accepted. Just don't get nasty, don't
get foul mouthed. We are trying a lot harder to play well together,
these last few weeks.
-- mushroom (mushroom_bs_too_long@yahoo.com), November 22, 1999.
Response to New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective...
Yes, this is the opinion of Andy Ray. It is shared by a few of the
other regulars here, like Y2K Pro, Mr. Decker, Flint and Hoffmeister.
It is my opinion that these people refuse to face the facts. They
ignore the warnings of Mr. Koskinem, the US Senate special panel on
Y2K, the Red Cross, IBM and countless others. They can not accept the
fact that their nice little comfy lives may be disrupted by Y2K. They
are afraid.
On the other side, we have SEVERAL HUNDRED people here with
the "doomer" attitude. This includes many people with programming
experience (875 man-years at last count), engineers, doctors and many
other smart, thinking people. Yes, the doomers may also be afraid,
but they are prepared.
So newbies, you decide. Ignore the problem and hope it goes away, or
prepare for it. It's your choice. It's your life. It's your family.
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 22, 1999.
Response to New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective...
Please delete these polly trolls.
-- (brett@miklos.org), November 22, 1999.
They call it the Y2K problem for a very good reason, not the various
dates in 1999 problem. 1999 failures are a drop in the bucket. The
number of programs that do any look-ahead processing is tiny when
compared to the total number of mainframe, mid-range, PC and embedded
systems that have a date problem.
It ain't Y2K yet. Not a prediction, but a FACT!
Tick... Tock... <:00=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 22, 1999.
For those who missed it, the post was originally titled (by the author) "New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective..." The title was editted - twice.
The first revision changed the title to "SPIN & OPINION: New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective..."
The second revision edited the revised title further to state "WARNING: AndyRay's SPIN & OPINION: New to Y2K? Concerned about possible failures? Another perspective..."
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000
Answers
There's probably someone who really cares at this point.
Unfortunately, I'm not it.
-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), November 25, 2000.
Andy, are you anal-retentive or obsessive-compulsive?
-- Wonderin (about@lots.of.things), November 25, 2000.
Ya know AR, there are some interesting conversations around that could
benefit from your input. Achey Breaky Heart does not a career make.
-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 25, 2000.
Quotable Quoted #60
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0047rT
-- The collected (works@of._A._Ray), November 25, 2000.
I'm Here, Wonderin', Carlos, and The Collected,
This is producing the precisely desired results from the precisely
desired respondents! The only regret I have is that I completely
predicted this response...*sigh*... ;)
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
This is producing the precisely desired results from the precisely
desired respondents!
Try posting something here once in awhile because you're actually
interested in having a conversation, Andy Ray. You might be
pleasantly surprised!
-- (talk@to.us), November 25, 2000.
If you mean that AR then climb down from that tired nag and join the
party!
-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 25, 2000.
talk,
When the moderation of this forum deviates to the point of
fairness regardless of pre-Y2k disposition, I will engage in the
other conversations, and not until. For example, when my email
address is editted to prevent spam, or when the background on my
posts is editted to remove backgrounds that render the text
unreadable; I will participate in the other discussions.
In summary, if the moderator wishes me to participate, he/she
needs to treat me exactly as she treats every other member of
the forum. If he/she makes changes for the benefit of another, he/she
needs to make similar changes to my benefit - anything else is
bias.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Oh for Christ's sake quit whimpering man! Little boys with a big toy
is what the internet is! Your search for fairness as defined by YOU
just ain't out there. Make what you can of what's REAL and stop
wasting yourself. I wouldn't bother with you if thought you were a
dummy but ya know, you could fool a fella.
-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), November 25, 2000.
Uneditted email address, after several requests - both
publicly stated and privately emailed
Editted email address - after no requests...oh, wait,
it was a doomer being imperaonated...different set of rules apply
(see the beginning of this post for another example of selective
moderation...)
Nothing wrong here, either, is there OTFR?
or here, either, right?
All's well, here, too - right?
Guess you are all correct - just an exageration on my part...
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
You've got to keep in mind, Andy, that if there was a real bias
against certain individuals on this board, this entire thread of yours
wouldn't be here in the first place.
-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), November 25, 2000.
How OTFR responded earlier this year to Andy Ray's complaints
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0034rZ
-- What (OTFR's@response.was), November 25, 2000.
Properly-ashamed doomer,
First, that wasn't a response to my complaints.
Second, the links above, and the fact that they remain in the
condition they are in, even after repeated requests for change -
requests, I might add, which do not have to made by those who
agreed with OTFR's aggregiously incorrect side of the entire Y2k
debacle - speak volumes in and of themselves.
We won't even bring up the fact that someone's IPs got passed
around the internet by your hero of conscience. Can you guess to
which side of the Y2k debate the offended party ascribed?
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
What,
And another thing. Thank you for assisting me in pointing out
exactly how one-sided the moderation on this forum has been and
remains. You link proves my point, as those posts were
corrected while mine were left defaced.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy Ray,
It's been a long time since we last spoke, or since we last pixelated
in these august halls for that matter. You have yet to forgive me for
the unfortunate incident that resulted in your precious FiFi, the
French Poodle, having a shaved backside. And I, unfortunately, have
not changed my mind about you being a whiney little princess.
It occurs to me, though I don't expect you give a rat's ass about
this, that OTFR ignores your bleating simply because you are so damned
obnoxious.
Bon Chance mon petite chou,
Andy Boy
-- Andy Boy (andyboy666@hotmale.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy Ray = y2k hero
Andy Boy = y2k queer-o
LOL!!!
-- LOL!! (L@o.L.), November 25, 2000.
...and so the all-too-familiar pattern draws yawningly
onward...
When ensnared by logic, aplomb by proof, the mighty and elegant
doomers quickly dart off the trail of interaction and return to their
sandpales - there to engage in the rhetoric to which only the poorest
losers of debates stoop...*sigh*...while cowering behind poor
attempts at clever aliases...*sigh*...
...and all the while, your words and deeds (and in-actions) serve
only to prove the points put forth above by a continually gracious,
though wronged; non-anonymous poster...
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy Ray = y2k rear-o
LOL=y2k zero
ROFLMAO!!!
-- ROFLMAO!!
-- (been missing@Andy.Boy), November 25, 2000.
Jesus Christ Andy, stop being such a fucking whiner. Gad, are you
this insufferable in real life too? You sound like a guy who as a kid
counted every single elbow macaroni until each sibling had exactly
and precisely the equal amount of Macaroni and Cheese. And now
someone has been unfair to you, and you are having an intellectual
meltdown over it.
Some of us might not mind having a discussion with you, but how many
times must we hear the story about how you caught the winning
touchdown back in "Pop Warner" football? Six thousand times is enough
already.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy Ray, is there a particular reason why you've started this thread
at this time? Has OTFR done something to you in the last week or two
the rest of us aren't aware of?
-- (?@?.?), November 25, 2000.
Uncle Deedah,
For my part, I accept responsibility for the reaction I chose to
the demonstrated unfairness. It has never been quite the "rash knee-
jerk" as some have accused - nevertheless I do not apologise.
Whenever confronted with such a clear demonstration of
discrimination, I respond thus - be it against myself (as in this
instance) or others (instances which you will likely never hear
about).
I see no reason to change.
Perhaps your argument is with the offending party, instead of with
the offended.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often
but a step.
-- F.A. Hayek
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 25, 2000.
I hereby formally announce that, beyond this post, I will never again
respond to your pathetic, mewling about y2k. TTFN.
-- (nemesis@awol.com), November 25, 2000.
Uncle Deedah,
No, I did not count out the macaroni as a child. I did fight older
and larger children who attempted to take food and water from
children my age or younger, however. And later, I voluntarily engaged
in conflict against repression of various sorts.
I suppose you would call starving children whiners, as well - but
not all are quite that heartless.
I do not like to speak of myself thus, for undoubtedly the capable
minds that reached the enough of a conclusion that Y2k could end
society that they actually spent money and time preparing will likely
apply similar critical thinking skills to my intentions.
So go ahead, Deedah - applaud the efforts of your comrades
demonstrated in so many ways above. Join them, in their criticism,
and sleep well tonight!
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy,
Hey dude,it ain't really no nevermind to me if ya want to bask in the
past and I am kinda partial to teal,but it's a whole lot more FUN in
the here and now.This might be one of those things we will have to
"agree to disagree" on but it seems there does come a time when it's in
our own interest to lay down the gauntlet,join the neighbors for some
racous debate,a frosty libation and just plain ol' frivolous laughter.
Plus,it's a whole lot more FUN looking outside of the forum for our
bitching and chuckles.Life is too short.
-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 25, 2000.
Is fair moderation possible?
Is it too much to ask?
Curious Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Well,at least I can see you do cruise the other threads,but why not
join in and contribute and let me/us see the discrimination and bias in
action (now).
I have no answers as to the html and other wizardry I see in the posted
threads to which you post as exhibits for the plantiff.I only see a
bunch of muck,remember the y2_ spamming after the fact and now the
drudging up of something *I* still can't understand.
I know I can't live in the past,even as much as I would dearly
sometimes die to do,because I would have to give up my today's and
tomorrow's and that would be a waste.Sometimes it's needed to start
afresh and see where that takes us,if it takes us back into the same
situation"then" it's time to build another road and choose a different
destination.
And just for the record Andy,if I saw evidence of of you or anyone else
being wronged in the"here and now" I would join you in your crusade
till the keys fell off my keyboard or we had to open a forum and talk
to ourselves.
So why not start afresh and lets see where that takes us?,Surely,as I
believe,you have things of value to add to this forum.Why not sit down
and stay a spell?
Sincerely,
-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 25, 2000.
capnfun,
Your words are gracious and eloquent. And I thank you both for
them and for the noble thoughts they express.
I will be happy to place the past behind.
OTFR must join me, or it will be for naught. Fairness must
be the highest rule, or all other rules are void. All past inequity
cannot be redressed, but effort should be made to correct it when it
is so obviously - and repeatedly - displayed. Else this forum becomes
the true heir to the fascism which spawned it.
The test of tolerance, good sir, is ever the intolerant.
As to whether or no I have ought to add to other discussions, I do
not know. I have participated in struggles of government rule before.
The essence of all my experience and past choices lies in this
thread, though. Plainly put: it is possible for those with authority
to rule fairly - the question forever remains: will they?
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy Ray,
It is obvious that you were deeply traumatized by your experience last
year. Indeed, it is difficult for a child who normally gets
everything his way and suddenly he is scolded and told to sit in the
corner.
It is very therapeutic for you to express how you felt about this
terrible experience, especially if you can learn not to resort to your
previous behavior of throwing tantrums. However, I would like to
suggest that a public forum is not the most suitable environment to
come to terms with your neuroses. You will have much greater success
if you seek out a professional therapist to assist you in this
process. Best wishes.
-- cyber freud (lay on the couch @ and. cry your heart out), November 25, 2000.
cyber freud,
I am certain some of your comrades find you mildly entertaining,
as do I. Very little of what you spoke of my past bears any
resemblance to the truth, however, revealing you as another doomer
cowering behind yet another pitiful alias. May it salve your ego, I
pray.
But your heroes have abandoned you, and you have, in turn,
abandoned any pretense of logic and debate - witdrawing to yet
another life - another name...but it belies the fact that your
ashamed family and former friends even now continue to doubt your
words. And shouldn't they?
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Andy Ray already addressed the issue of OTFR's fairness in a
thread appropriately titled Is OTFR fair?. In it, Andy Ray authored the
following posts:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OTFR,
I stand corrected (demonstrably so).
Please accept my humble thanks for your efforts.
Regards,
Andy Ray
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
OTFR,
I apologise for publicly defaming your character with my selective
analysis of information, misleading statements, and inaccurate
conclusions.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 25, 2000.
And yet the posts have not been changed.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
And OTFR attempted to explain her inaction, but didn't quite pull
it off. Even when she acknowledged the problems, whe did nothing to
correct them. Any idea why?
Curious Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Yeah, Andy does a lot of apologizing. He's like the annoying little
pissant spoiled brat in every neighborhood who throws rocks at
people's windows. When his parents tell him he must be punished, he
starts sobbing and saying he's sorry until they let him off the hook.
A few days later, he's back to being a brat again.
-- (booo.hooo.hooo@poor.little.andy), November 25, 2000.
Still hiding, little boy? You can come out - I'm back on the east
coast again! Laughing! :)
Humorous Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
BOOOOO HOOOO HOOOOOO!! *sniff, sniff*
OTFR hurt my feelings a year ago, and I still can't get over it.
She should apologize to me. *sob, sob*
BOOOOO HOOOOO, WAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAAAH WAAAAAAAAAH!!
-- LOL (what@crybaby.fag), November 25, 2000.
You better watch out, little boy, or I'll threaten to fly out
there again...
Humourous Regards,
Andy Ray
PS - Have you seen the messages in the meta tag source for these
pages?
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
And OTFR attempted to explain her inaction, but didn't quite pull it
off. Even when she acknowledged the problems, whe did
nothing to correct them. Any idea why?
Perhaps for the same reason he/she never corrected this thread. Or are you still laboring under the
delusion that it was truly authored by Ed Yourdon himself?
The facts are undeniable. In this thread there is clear evidence that OTFR
cleaned up threads and posts by your imposter, evidence which
you acknowledged with your apology. In this thread there is clear evidence that OTFR
cleaned up threads and posts authored by a CPR imposter,
CPR being about as far from a "doomer" as you can possibly
get. And finally, there is this thread, authored by an Ed Yourdon
imposter which even today still contains Ed's actual e-mail
address, Ed being a doomer of the highest caliber, I'm sure
you'd agree.
The facts presented demonstrate that OTFR shows no bias
against "pollies" and no bias towards "doomers." Your evidence,
however compelling, merely demonstrates that OTFR is
imperfect, not that OTFR is biased. I would venture to say that if
you insist on perfection in your moderators, you will not find it
here. Perhaps you might find it on EZ-Board. LOL.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 25, 2000.
hmmm,
Your continued defense of OTFR's bias is puzzling. If she admits
that she sees a problem, and acknowledges it's existence, and then
fails to act upon it, that is bias, plain and simple. Bias. Period.
you cannot justify the failure to correct an acknowledged fault with
failures to correct other faults - acknowledged or no...unless you're
doomer - then all bets are off when it comes to doing the correct
thing and applying logic.
She was, is, and will remain wrong until she addresses the
problem, hmmm. You need to accept that.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Your continued defense of OTFR's bias is puzzling.
As is your continued insistence that OTFR is biased in light of
overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If she admits that she sees a problem, and acknowledges it's
existence, and then fails to act upon it, that is bias, plain and
simple.
That is only one of several possibilities. It could also be a result
of overwork, stress, forgetfulness, or simply laziness. If there
was bias, why would OTFR even acknowledge the
existence of such problems?
you cannot justify the failure to correct an acknowledged fault
with failures to correct other faults - acknowledged or no...unless
you're doomer - then all bets are off when it comes to doing the
correct thing and applying logic.
LOL. I am not "justifying" the failure to correct an acknowledged
fault. I am providing evidence that OTFR's failure to correct
acknowledged faults shows no bias. OTFR has corrected posts
by your imposter, OTFR has corrected posts by
CPR's imposter, OTFR cleaned up
most of the threads both you and CPR authored
which were sabotoged by "i@love.shapes." OTFR has
not corrected the post authored by the Ed Yourdon
imposter. Your insinuation that OTFR is biased against pollies
and towards doomers is based on insufficient
evidence.
She was, is, and will remain wrong until she addresses the
problem, hmmm. You need to accept that.
What I accept is that you will continue to accuse OTFR of bias,
completely ignoring clear evidence to the contrary. It would
appear that you've been practicing the basic principles of
"doomer logic," such as it is.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 25, 2000.
hmmm,
Your entire defense of OTFR rests on supposition, assumption, and
flimsy logic. Since I clearly demonstrated she could claim ignorance
as an excuse, you dredge up other really important excuses for not
performing the job of moderator equitably.
Plus you produce one entire examples of her leaning towards
a doomer - probably left there for your purposes, or for such a
flimsy defense.
I have produced five examples of her lack of moderation. Come back
when you have four more.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
If the forum is to be without bias, perhaps we need another
moderator; one with enough time to perform the job equitably, and
also without bias.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Your entire defense of OTFR rests on supposition, assumption,
and flimsy logic.
LOL. Actually, it rests on clear evidence which demonstrates that
she is neither biased towards you nor CPR. And here, you are
simply trying to wave it away with baseless accusations, much
like a doomer would in the pre-Y2K days. All you need to add is a
"go back to Debunkers, troll!" cry to make it complete.
Plus you produce one entire examples of her leaning towards a
doomer - probably left there for your purposes, or for such a
flimsy defense.
And here is another baseless accusation. Or do you actually
have evidence that this example was "probably left there" for my
purposes? Maybe the evidence is sitting in one of those black
helicopters. LOL.
I have produced five examples of her lack of moderation.
You have indeed, but these are not five examples of
bias which was what you were accusing OTFR of,
remember? As I said, your examples only prove
imperfection but unfortunately, not bias.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 25, 2000.
hmmm,
It would be different if you were right about this, but you're
not. And your attempts at justification are humourous.
Your "logic" may have prevailed upon ashamed family members and
former friends last year, adn who know? they may have even listened
enough to buy a bag of beans or rice, but it does not work here.
The partial quotes you produce - to match the partial thought
processes - are inadequate to sway the evidence.
No one else even dared to offer as flimsy an argument. Even
sqwawk had the decency to hide behind an alias and throw mockery,
which was, in fact, much more productive than this Gore-ish repsonse
of yours.
Once again, OTFR knew about the problems for ten weeks now, and
has, in a demonstrated bias, not acted upon them. It's simple,
really. Think about it.
Humourous Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
It would be different if you were right about this, but you're not.
Well, that's sure convincing! LOL
And your attempts at justification are humourous.
Likewise, especially considering your above statement. Or is
". . .It would be different if you were right about this, but you're
not. . ." your idea of justification?
Your "logic" may have prevailed upon ashamed family members
and former friends last year, adn who know? they may have even
listened enough to buy a bag of beans or rice, but it does not
work here.
Apparently, you are insinuating that I'm a "doomer." Once again,
do you have any evidence of this or is this simply another in an
ever-growing string of your baseless accusations?
The partial quotes you produce - to match the partial thought
processes - are inadequate to sway the evidence.
Unfortunately, simply saying that they are inadequate doesn't
make it so. And I provided entire threads not partial
quotes, all of which you have conveniently ignored in order to
satisfy your meme.
No one else even dared to offer as flimsy an argument. Even
sqwawk had the decency to hide behind an alias and throw
mockery, which was, in fact, much more productive than this
Gore-ish repsonse of yours.
So you prefer insults by those that hide behind an alias rather
than provide clear evidence contrary to your accusations? I can
see why.
Once again, OTFR knew about the problems for ten weeks now,
and has, in a demonstrated bias, not acted upon them.
Yes, you continue to repeat the same accusations without
acknowledging the evidence to the contrary. Perhaps you should
post in blinking text, like "Y2K CANNOT BE FIXED" as I'm sure it
will have an effect that is just as productive.
It's simple, really.
Indeed it is!
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 25, 2000.
Geeze, I can see that it must be Thanksgiving Break for the kids in
school.
-- (Haven't@Been.Around), November 25, 2000.
hmmm,
Perhaps you are correct.
Perhaps instead of feeling sleighted by OTFR's lack of action -
blaming it upon bias, I should heed your interpretation of it, and
chalk it all up to ineptitude. I suppose I should feel pity for
someone who has demonstrated they are stuck with a position which
they cannot perform adequately.
Tell me, do you have any idea when poor OTFR might "get around" to
fixing these few posts, now that she's been reminded of it - yet
again?
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 25, 2000.
Blah blah blah, sob sob sob, whimper whimper whimper, sniff sniff
sniff, pout pout pout...
[insert remainder of gay teal text here]
-- Randy Gay (i'm @ fag. bitch), November 25, 2000.
Perhaps you are correct.
Finally, something we agree on. LOL.
Perhaps instead of feeling sleighted by OTFR's lack of action -
blaming it upon bias, I should heed your interpretation of it, and
chalk it all up to ineptitude. I suppose I should feel pity for
someone who has demonstrated they are stuck with a position
which they cannot perform adequately.
As I mentioned previously, if you are seeking perfection in a
moderator, as it seems you are, then you will not likely find it
here.
Tell me, do you have any idea when poor OTFR might "get
around" to fixing these few posts, now that she's been reminded
of it - yet again?
I have no idea. Perhaps you should ask OTFR
yourself and find out.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 25, 2000.
hmmm, Andy Ray and everyone else: Can't We Just All Get Along?
-- Rodney (enjoying@my.money), November 25, 2000.
Of course he is seeking perfection in the moderation of this board.
Just like he sought perfection in Macaroni and Cheese distribution as
a child.
Andy, you have become a caricature of yourself, which is no small
feat.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), November 26, 2000.
Perfection? Nay, small hmmm...
I do not seek perfection in a moderator, merely one is able to
perform the job to minimum standards. Only when the need is presented
to them - laid at their feet - do I expect the moderator to perform.
I agree with you now. Obviously, it's too big a job for poor OTFR to
actually examine threads and repair them - well, all of the threads,
anyway. So of course she must choose between the threads she examines
and those she does not. That's only normal.
What about when she admits there is a problem a problem, though
and does nothing of it? Care to cut and paste that little snippet
from the thread you cut and pasted my apology? And I have
demonstrated in my apology if nowhere else a willingness to meet her
more than halfway on this issue - my goodness, I apologised
knowing she hadn't corrected the errors.
So, she knows it's there - has for 10 weeks. And she's left the
errors standing - for ten weeks after I apologised. You are right,
hmmm, she is inept.
Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 26, 2000.
This thread has grown entirely too long - again, my apologies.
In an effort to keep it's length manageable, I make the following
request: Please, only respond to this thread if you can produce at
least five existing examples of your posts being defamed. For then,
truly, we can converse as peers on this matter. If you're not a
victim of ineptitude or fascism, however you interpret the ten week
lapse of our fair moderator, then please hold your comments until a
later time.
Thank You,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 26, 2000.
Andy,
I seem to recall that this is OTFR's forum and that the original
statement indicated that he/she would take minimal action to enforce
order when necessary, but would otherwise leave it alone. Removing
things that are obviously hate trolls or pornography certainly seems
reasonable. Those of us who post here do so because we like the
intellectual stimulation, sharing of ideas and information, and social
connection with others who frequent here. If you don't like the way
things are here why not go start your own Whiners Forum?
-- OTFR Fan (thanks@OTFR.for.running.this.forum), November 26, 2000.
We're on a forum that doesn't WANT moderation, yet someone is
complaining about the moderator not doing his/her job? TEN weeks
ago? Do you have this in your "tickle" file to remind you of it,
Andy? Do you have the link in your "favorites"?
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 26, 2000.
I do not seek perfection in a moderator, merely one is able to
perform the job to minimum standards. Only when the need is
presented to them - laid at their feet - do I expect the moderator
to perform.
It would appear that your definition of "minimum standards"
closely resembles that of "perfection."
I agree with you now.
Do you really?
Obviously, it's too big a job for poor OTFR to actually examine
threads and repair them - well, all of the threads, anyway. So of
course she must choose between the threads she examines
and those she does not. That's only normal.
What about when she admits there is a problem a problem,
though and does nothing of it? Care to cut and paste that little
snippet from the thread you cut and pasted my apology?
I don't see why you are incapable of performing such a simple
act, but here you go:
To the Andy imposter troll above; i'm quite disgusted with your
behavior tonight.
Anyone complaining about being trolled should not be trolling
themselves. I'll help the honest people before I will trollers. And
anyone complaining about my fairness, should just try and run a
forum of their own for a while.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
OTFR
Hope that helps.
And I have demonstrated in my apology if nowhere else a
willingness to meet her more than halfway on this issue - my
goodness, I apologised knowing she hadn't corrected the errors.
You also admitted to ". . .publicly defaming [his/her] character
with your selective analysis of information, misleading
statements, and inaccurate conclusions. . ."
So, she knows it's there - has for 10 weeks. And she's left the
errors standing - for ten weeks after I apologised. You are right,
hmmm, she is inept.
Except that I never said OTFR was inept, only imperfect. But you
are correct, I am right. LOL.
In an effort to keep it's length manageable, I make the following
request: Please, only respond to this thread if you can produce at
least five existing examples of your posts being defamed. For
then, truly, we can converse as peers on this matter. If you're not
a victim of ineptitude or fascism, however you interpret the ten
week lapse of our fair moderator, then please hold your
comments until a later time.
I regret to admit that I have yet to be defamed. However, the irony
is that there is someone who indeed has five
examples of being impersonated in the exact same manner as
you. I believe you know him as "Sqwawk":
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3
Example 4
Example 5
Here's an amusing thread. In this thread Andy Ray expresses great
amusement at Hawk being impersonated. Why aren't you
complaining about OTFR's obvious "bias" against Hawk?
Sqwawk,
After all the impersonation you have foisted upon this forum and
the Hysterium before this, I believe you have the least credibility
to complain about someone impersonating you.
Personally, I'm enjoying your (over-) reaction - it is highly
amusing and entertaining to observe. However, I would caution
you: You are making doomers look bad - and that's difficult to do
here in a relatively stable and electrically-powered society in the
summer of 2000....
Vindicated and Amused Regards,
Andy Ray
Just to round things out, here is a thread that impersonates both Y2J
and Dennis J. Olson, both Doomers from the old TimeBomb.
Another Dennis J. Olson imposter post can also be found here.
So, let's see, we have imposters posting as Y2J, Dennis J.
Olson, Hawk, and Ed Yourdon. Four doomer identities. And
OTFR hasn't fixed a single thread. Perhaps OTFR is biased
against doomers. LOL.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 26, 2000.
Here's another impersonation thread:
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=003kCm
{Look who turns up on the bottom}.
-- flora (***@__._), November 26, 2000.
Again, apologies for the length of this thread,
And in yet another attempt to limit the number of spurious
responses, I will repeat my earlier request, and ask that if
you cannot produce at least five example of your own posts being
defamed, please do not respond.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 26, 2000.
Oopsie, Andy Ray -
I guess only four of my posts on that thread were 'defamed' - hope
you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
Now, as for you original post on this thread - I can't imagine what
rules were violated & I really wish someone responsible would step up
to the plate to cast some light on the change of titles - but I'd lay
odds that it aint gonna happen in my lifetime. Do you post this
stuff here because you think we're all 'true believers', or is mostly
for the EZ crowd & lurkers? Your jihad on the current forum
administrator muddies the waters for me as to your intent, and I'd
appreciate some clarification.
-- flora (***@__._), November 26, 2000.
And in yet another attempt to limit the number of spurious
responses, I will repeat my earlier request, and ask that if you
cannot produce at least five example of your own posts being
defamed, please do not respond.
The problem with your request, however, is that it goes against
the basic premise of this board. Anyone is and should be
allowed to respond to your posts. That is the nature of
Uncensored. It now appears that you would be more comfortable
in a censored environment, where threads are controlled to
prevent responses considered "spurious." Such an environment
is available her
e with "moderators" who take it upon themselves to decide
whose posts are permissable and whose are not.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 26, 2000.
I guess only four of my posts on that thread were 'defamed' -
hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
Only four posts listed by Andy Ray were 'defamed' as well. The
fifth was posted by the Diane Squire imposter.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 26, 2000.
No, hmmm, you are wrong again.
The problem is that none of your posts have been defamed. It's not
a problem because it hasn't happened to you. How selfish.
I merely wish to see the same rules applied evenly to one and all.
Your meandering attempts at distraction expose your own bias, and
does not (effectively, at least) defend your hero(es).
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 26, 2000.
The problem is that none of your posts have been defamed.
Why is that a problem?
I merely wish to see the same rules applied evenly to one and
all.
Understood. However, your previous argument was that the
rules were being applied to favor doomers over pollies. Clearly
the evidence indicates otherwise. And if you really wish to see
the same rules applied evenly to one and all, then why are you
attempting to restrict the posters responding to this thread to
only certain individuals?
Your meandering attempts at distraction expose your own bias,
and does not (effectively, at least) defend your hero(es).
LOL, I didn't realize that you would consider providing evidence
contrary to your accusations would be considered an "attempt at
distraction." But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 26, 2000.
I merely wish to see the same rules applied evenly to one and
all.
Perhaps they are being applied evenly now, Andy Ray. Can you point to
an example from the last month or two where they weren't?
-- It's been calm (around@here.lately), November 26, 2000.
I didn't realize that you would consider providing evidence
contrary to your accusations would be considered an "attempt at
distraction."
What evidence? You have provided no evidence that OTFR is not
biased. In fact, your evidence suggests that she is both biased
and inept! I thought you were defending OTFR...what a poor
defense... Does OTFR have any friends, I wonder?
You "defense" reminds me of the person who says 'SOmeone told me
they saw you eating a dead-dog sandwiche, but I stood up for you...I
tild them you didn't like bread!' LOL!
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You're not surprised becuase someone has finally called your hero
on her bias? Glad to see you agree!
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 26, 2000.
What evidence? You have provided no evidence that OTFR is not
biased.
LOL. Once again, simply claiming that I have provided
no evidence does not make it so. It is not unlike the doomers
who, when presented with clear evidence pre-Y2K that the Y2K
bug would not mean the end of civilization, simply insisted that it
was not evidence. The linked posts clearly indicate no bias from
OTFR whatsoever. That you will not admit this because you are
caught up in your meme is unfortunate, but not unexpected.
You're not surprised becuase someone has finally called your
hero on her bias?
I'm not surprised that you continue to cling to your meme, unable
or unwilling to face up to the reality that you were wrong about
OTFR.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 26, 2000.
Quotably Quoted #61:Three days after 'The Return of Sysop
#3'...(long)
I'm wondering what Andy Ray meant by the title of this thread.
Is Chuck now a co-sysop here at TB2K spinoff uncensored with OTFR?
-- (scratching@my.head), November 27, 2000.
I'm not surprised that you continue to cling to your meme,
unable or unwilling to face up to the reality that you were wrong
about OTFR.
But I am claiming that I was wrong about OTFR. I was wrong when I
thought she was being fair.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
Is Chuck now a co-sysop here at TB2K spinoff uncensored with
OTFR?
scratching,
You must understand. hmmm, ever the defender of (some) people at
the expense of principle, has been knocked off a small yet sturdy
soapbox. For you see, hmmm followed my posts for months with well-
worded (yet illogical) lies and commentary - when, as I posted
complaints about the treatment doled out by hmmm's heroes (the
fascists that ran the Hysterium), hmmm would repeatedly state
that "those people don't read the posts here," and "you should go to
EZ board and complain."
hmmm has been proven wrong, and it really bothers hmmm. For you
see, Chuck Rienzo himself responded just a few days ago to some
threads on this board. In fact, he was begged to stay in the title of
one such thread.
This has wounded hmmm's little ego terribly as hmmm has not the
fortitude to admit this error and seeks only to distract and deter
(like any good lapdog). It reminds me of a certain US political
party.
In answer to your question, Chuck does not moderate here, to my
knowledge. But I am certain he approves of the moderation of OTFR, as
does/would Diane Squire.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
How long has it been since OTFR's most recent "offense" to you Andy?
It seems like quite a while to me. Why not shed your neurosis and
move on to more constructive things, instead of being so fixated?
-- Troll Detector (TD@watching.you.trolls), November 27, 2000.
For you see, hmmm followed my posts for months with well- worded (yet
illogical) lies and commentary - when, as I posted complaints about
the treatment doled out by hmmm's heroes (the fascists that ran the
Hysterium), hmmm would repeatedly state that "those people don't read
the posts here," and "you should go to EZ board and complain."
I don't recall making either of these statements. Please post the
threads where I supposedly made them.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 27, 2000.
I ... recall making ... these statements. Please ... I ... made
them.
Well, hmmm, you are certainly being agreeable this morning, but
for one, I'm glad you're not defending me...
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
But I am claiming that I was wrong about OTFR.
I'm glad you finally admitted it, Andy. Thanks.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 27, 2000.
I'm glad..., Andy. Thanks.
Please, hmmm - never defend me. :)
Vindicated regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
And in yet another attempt to limit the number of spurious
responses, I will repeat my earlier request, and ask that if
you cannot produce at least five example of your own posts being
defamed, please do not respond.
I will say one thing--you have a lot of chutzpah, Andy Ray. You'd
already admitted near the beginning of this thread that your reason
for starting it was to bait doomers.
This is producing the precisely desired results from the precisely
desired respondents!
-- in awe (of@your.chutzpah), November 27, 2000.
Please, hmmm - ...defend me.
Defend your own self.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 27, 2000.
I will say one thing--you are certainly correct about OTFR and
myself being doomers.
I deduced as much from your application of logic, and cutting and
pasting skills.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
I...participate in stalking,...I encourage such behavior in others.
Not surprising.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 27, 2000.
I think Andy Ray is always correct.
I'm flattered.
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
I'm flat...
Really?
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 27, 2000.
I'm...real
Flatly?
Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray
-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), November 27, 2000.
F...at...in...Re...ar...,
Andy Ray
Try dieting.
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), November 27, 2000.
Foreplay?
-- cin (cin@cin.cin), November 27, 2000.
OK : )
-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), November 28, 2000.
Andy Ray, the problem is that no matter what forum you're on, you
talk at people instead of to them. And now, close to a
year after the non-event, you still seem incapable of talking about
anything but doomers and how you were right.
The threads you start come across as intended to provoke rather than
to encourage factual discussion. Like CPR, you start threads that
impugn people's motives and then interpret any disagreement with your
tactics as something that could only be from a doomer.
Maybe you take disagreement with you as a sign people still don't
know what you know about y2k, and that your mission thus isn't over
yet. It never occurs to you that you act one-dimensional and that
sometimes people disagree with you because they honestly believe
you're wrong on some point--like OTFR.
Do you want give-and-take discussions with others, or do you have a
secret need to get replies from hotheads like Hawk to make you feel
justified in continuing your 'mission'? You still seem stuck in that
old book writing mode of yours.
http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012Td
Andy Ray is Famous!
:)
'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 (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 04, 1999.
For your own sake, Andy Ray, start talking to those of us who aren't
hotheads as if we're human beings. It's time for you to communicate
with the human race again.
-- Just (another@human.being), November 29, 2000.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ