From: "Andy Ray" andyman633@hotmail.com
To: sacredspaces@yahoo.com
Subject: watching? really?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 07:10:56 PDT

Dear Diane J. Squire,

Reading some responses at the TimeBomb site, supposedly from you (I will assume the immitating post-ers only immitate pollys, and not their fellow doomers), I am curious: If you have the ability to 'watch,' as you have stated, why didn't anyone raise this kind of fuss when someone started using my handle and email address? Why was it acceptable for someone to use the method I revealed at the debunker site against me? Where were the implied threats then? Just curious - not upset, and not really expecting a response.

Someone - from their viewpoints and tactics, someone on your side of the debate - chose to initiate this type of action against me in responses to my posts. If you have any semblance of fairness, you will identify the person and communicate with them about their actions. I had no idea how Greenspun's scripting worked prior to this incident, but I have learned a great deal in the last two days. I shall finish my education in scripting, and then return to post more questions. It would perhaps be wise to chat with the person who initiated the attack on my posts (if you know who did this, assuming again it wasn't you personally), and ask them to refrain. Someone on your side chose to escalate this and chose the manner, I simply exposed it.

As I stated in a previous post here and at the debunking site, one must consider the possibility of a tactic they employ being turned against them. Before you allow, encourage, or engage in yet another campaign against me, you should perhaps consider this fact and my demonstrated understanding of it carefully - very carefully.

Perhaps it would be less trouble to allow me to ask questions, and allow the people utilising your forum to respond.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Answers

My response... for what it's worth... shoulda cooled down... oh well... just thought you should know...

Dear "Andy Ray,"

Believe it or not, I do not read every thread or every post, and, I rarely read anything you, or Decker, write.

Sometimes I give it a quick glance. But since you've impressed me with your total arrogance about "gathering research" for your "supposed" book, pretty much, I ignore your comments. There are more important stories to read and Y2K research to follow, like Cohen, IMHO.

The first I knew that you had a turquoise imposter was, when several of the Moderators and several of the regulars e-mailed me saying there was a major HTML snaffoo going on and it had to to with two of your threads. That's as much as I knew.

I then had to waste hours yesterday, dealing with the mess. And, BTW, I also uncovered a few trolls (couple DB'ers) playing with other forms of HTML "playtoys."

Then what REALLY frosts me is you post the code on the De Bunker site, claiming...

"No... no... don't... DO THIS."

Yeah, right. Then Paul chimes in discussing "other" ways for disrupting Greenspun and you go off, publicly looking for more Greenspun weaknesses.

Tacky, doesn't begin to describe your actions!

NO, you did NOT start it, near as I can tell... now. But your sure aren't reacting with any finesse either. Why am I not surprised?

I will contact the ISP of the person who did the HTML trashing. Since the have been careful NOT to use a real e-mail, I cannot contact them directly. I will also file an abuse complaint with Inside The Web against the De Bunker site.

And gawd knows... there's been more than enough "abuse" coming from the crowd you run with. I would have no objection if they stayed in their pond, but when cpr and "friends" under so many different names and anonomizers (except every now and then they goof-up), keeps hitting TBY2K then running back to DB to crow about it, well it get's pretty ridiculous.

IF you knew there was someone using your name, then you should have FLAGGED me at y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com and please don't ASSUME I'll just notice. That goes for anyone posting... polly/middy/doomer.

I can't tell you the number of times my name has been hijacked, during Ed's tenure. (Or how many times the De Bunkies continue to attack me personally with fantasized claims). It really gets tiring.

As to posters, imitating others, it happens all the time on all sides of the fence... doomer, polly, and middy. There is no one group that has the lock on flaming and imitating. (BTW, just discovered "Chicken Little" loves to imitate al-d).

Somehow, I think you and others, get the idea that I should spend all my time looking for problems and handle stealers. No way. A waste of energy.

I am completely volunteer on this Forum... I make no money and derive no income from Y2K anything. So spending my time watching the kiddies be nasty to one another, is not how I choose to spend my time, for the most part. I will pay attention when a problem arises, and when I'm flagged on it, or if I happen to notice it.

You end with...

"Before you allow, encourage, or engage in yet another campaign against me, you should perhaps consider this fact and my demonstrated understanding of it carefully - very carefully. ... Perhaps it would be less trouble to allow me to ask questions, and allow the people utilizing your forum to respond."

If that is a THREAT "Andy Ray" and it sure looks like one, don't even think it.

I rarely get ANGRY, and you really DO NOT want to push me to it.

We have many options available, not the least of which is to require that the forum posters use "real" not other e-mail, and/or contacting their ISP with documented "abuse" histories.

Don't push me "Andy Ray."

'Nuf said.

Now, I need a latte and time to "chill out."

Diane

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Good response Diane

Kinder than he would have got from me.

Personally any post he contributes should have an alert as to who he trys to be.

I still think this is Steven Poole. Just reeks of his bullshit.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Yes, it's a threat. There's a post on Bonkers from AR in a similar vein. Of AR replies, may I suggest the minimum possible response? If this thing ever gets out of hand, you'd be amazed what a tricky lawyer can do with the most innocent statement. If you haven't already, suggest you keep a file of each post on the pertinent thread.

I'm torn between thinking this character is Wolverine (using a friend's or other address) and some female from Bonkers.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

This is the post I referred to. Re-reading it, it really does sound a lot like Wolverine's arrogance/petulance. But of course I easily could be completely wrong.

http://www.InsideTheWeb.com/messageboard/mbs.cgi?acct=mb237006&MyNum=9 33190546&P=Yes&TL=933185539

Debunking Y2k webboard

Access to a private forum? Wednesday, 28-Jul-1999 15:35:46

12.79.198.86 writes:

Anita,

I do not want access to a private doomer forum. Do you want access to it? It sounds depressing. Plus, I enjoy participating in the public Hysterium. It is still possible to engage in some (though rare) civilised debate there.

There are some people that I encourage to rant and rave against all for which I stand, as their lack of intelligence, lack of character, and inexperience with the tools of logic strengthens my arguments in the debate. I have repeatedly stated as much at the Hysterium.

Now, I suppose I could have been disruptive if I encouraged people to disrupt the Hysterium, but I chose to take the high road, discouraging people from using the snippet of code provided (which can be highlighted in the original thread of this message, copied and pasted into your response at the Hysterium, or saved as a text file for later use; much like the arguments employed by the doomers at the Hysterium). And if I had encouraged people to utilise this snippet of code, it would only take an experienced programmer a few lines of code to trap and remove such data from the database of each post...of course that would slow things down a bit there...and that may be seen as a disruption, though I believe that's a stretch. I suppose I could author such code - for a small fee.

I also suppose I could issue some sort of 'guideline' of my own, stating that if people do not wish to engage in debate at this level, they should perhaps refrain from initiating such tactics - as I find it highly entertaining to turn my opponent's tactics back upon them in any debate. We can continue in this manner until one of us stops, and I will be pleasantly amused by the distraction such endeavors promise. (This brings to mind some advice I received while training in my youth with an Hispanic gentleman who served as a US Airborne Ranger in Vietnam: 'If you cannot [urinate] in the tall grass, then do not run with the big dogs.')

In the meantime, let's see where it goes from here, shall we?

Regards, Andy Ray

Andy Ray

-- Anonymous, July 30, 1999

Diane,

Great response.

Point of fact, there was at least several times that a Polly also imitated Andy Ray with color text, etc. I think that is why Andy Ray actually mentions he is confused as to whether or not the imposter is trying to hurt him or help him in one post he made.

Regardless, the guy is a sleeze and on a serious head trip.

Mike

=================================================================

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

"...the guy is a sleeze and on a serious head trip."

That about says it.

He sent another "more concilatory" e-mail to me yesterday, but I'm just not gonna' respond.

From: "Andy Ray" andyman633@hotmail.com
To: sacredspaces@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: watching? really?
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 1999 08:59:51 PDT

Dear Diane J. Squire,

You typed in the forum: "I'm not forgiving him exactly, and most certainly 'others' will watch him"; and then in your response below:

"If that is a THREAT 'Andy Ray' and it sure looks like one, don't even think it. I rarely get ANGRY, and you really DO NOT want to push me to it."

Well, at least I make my "threats," if you choose to view it as one, in person - not hiding behind "others."

As for the rest, I don't think you like part of the job you accepted when you decided to become a forum moderator. It is certainly not an easy job, and I would not be willing to do it myself.

As for being tacky, that is a matter of opinion. Inappropriate responses to other's opinions started this latest round. I hope it stops here - truly I do.

I appreciate your dilemna, and understand some of your emotions. You seem to be the lightening rod of all who disagree, and Mr. Yourdon's May exit did nothing to make that an easy job. Believe it or not, I am actually sorry you have had to endure the abuse you have. It is not right that anyone should. Until recently, you seemed to have maintained a "distracted air" about your posts. I do not know what changed, as I do not read all the posts either, but something seems to have "gotten through" to you, and hurt. It's hard to do any job when you are defending yourself, and I sincerely sympathise.

I promise to do everything within my power to keep the debate civilised. I did not mean to be beligerent before, and perhaps that is why you took what I said to be a threat - it was and is offered in the same spirit as the previous statement. We should be fine so long as you (or those on your side) do not "push me."

Enjoy your latte.

Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Anonymous, July 31, 1999

Wonderful. NOW we have BOTH sides in the wrong.

Chuck

-- Anonymous, August 02, 1999