I can only hazard a guess. Take everything together - the bland assertion that he had everything figured out with absolute certainty (to hell with what Kosky ever said); the willingness to make blanket statements about areas about which he knows less than nothing (e.g. underdeveloped countries)..add it all together, and maybe we have Stephen Poole.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000

Answers

Peter, Peter the erring guy,

Can turn the truth into a lie.

For unlike Andy,

Hes not too handy,

His predictions just dont fly!

-- Ra (tion@l.1), May 12, 2000.

Sun Ra

you need to improve your meter

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), May 12, 2000.

Considering the fact that your real polly often simply avoids responding to an uncomfortable argument, Ra's response may be as substantive as I'll get.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000.

OK, I've got a question for both Stephen Poole and Andy Ray, if they are in fact two people. Sweeping knowledge of underdeveloped countries has been claimed under both handles.

Papua New Guinea certainly qualifies as an underdeveloped country, yet its banking system is heavily computerized. And its banking system came through just fine. Why was that?

The fact that I'm sure you don't know doesn't mean you are boobs. Very few people would know the reason. What makes you boobs is that you pretend to know the situation for a country like Papua New Guinea.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000.

I have been drinking coffee from Papua, New Guinea this week. It is excellant.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), May 12, 2000.

I have always thought Andy Ray=Stephen Poole and have posted this since Andy Rays first post.

People found out about Stephen's faith and his walk was not being consistant with the teachings of Jesus. He "invented" the alter- personality to hypocritically do his "dirty work". Will these works withstand the fire? Not a chance I'm willing to take.

-- Gentile (Jesus@is.watching), May 12, 2000.

Peter:

I think you're stretching to an extreme here. I'd guess I have somewhere the real names of every polly who ever posted regarding Y2k, as well as half the doomers. Like every other "handle" I've met on the internet in the past 5 years, I don't even THINK of their real names unless I'm addressing something personal in an E-mail. MANY folks had similar opinions regarding Y2k [and other topics]. This does NOT indicate that 'a' is 'SYSMAN', nor that Stephen is Andy Ray. In fact, I find your post a disappointment in its similarity to those by Laura in which she considered Manny to be Mark, and all the other variations on a theme.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 12, 2000.

Anita, I'm only speculating, for goodness sake.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000.

good question: Is Anita really al-D? :o)

I know that I have always wondered.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

To Anita, again:

Don't knock my detective abilities, kiddo. One of these days I'm going to astound you all by revealing who Super Polly really is.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000.

To all:

I realize that my last post was perhaps cruel, in claiming that I had figured out who Super Polly really is, and then keeping everyone in suspense.

Anita may heap scorn on my head, but it is my firmly held belief that Super Polly is in fact none other than the legendary Mr. Polly himself.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000.

I remember a Debunkers message last year in which Andy Ray said others would be better suited to take action against the TimeBomb 2000 forum because he was not a U.S. citizen

Someone else guessed once that Andy Ray is Norwegian, Swedish or something along those lines because of a certain saying he used in one of his messages that's also used in one of those countries. The saying was something to the effect that those who make unnecessary warnings later will say that those warnings are what prevented the outcome from being so bad.

I don't believe Andy Ray is Stephen Poole, although Poole is noteworthy for his belief that Ed Yourdon, Gary North and others are to blame for the government believing that y2k was a serious issue.

-- (%@%.%), May 12, 2000.

Andy Ray = Stephen Poole = asshole in Christian clothing

-- Inspector 9 (@ .), May 12, 2000.

Don't knock my detective abilities, kiddo.

There you have it. Peter Errington is none other than former PI Lady Logic.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), May 12, 2000.

To hmm: I hereby deny that I am Lady Logic (but then, I guess that this is exactly what you'd expect me to say).

To %@%: Now you really have me somewhat upset. You're saying this clown might be Swedish? Can't possibly be true. (Errington used to be Ericson).

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 12, 2000.

hmmm:

Nonsense, Flint was lady logic.

Actually we determined a very long time ago that there was only one person posting here. Given, a person with a severe multiple personality disorder, but one person indeed. As I recall, it was LL who concluded that.

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), May 12, 2000.

I'm Brian, and so's my wife.

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), May 12, 2000.

Netghost hasn't been posting as himself much lately. Is he still around as someone else? You detectives -- have you figured out who he is yet?

-- Suspense (who's@who.con), May 12, 2000.

Whoever Andy is, I wish he'd quit using that annoying green script and switch to what the rest of us use. More people might read his posts.

-- Eyestrain (easy@to.read.please), May 12, 2000.

ERRingman,

If you apply this same level of logic to solving Super Polly's identity, you will remain in the dark. I'm not Andy Ray. I've never met Andy (though I believe we've corresponded by email a time or two); I don't even know what he looks like.

I live in Birmingham, AL, work as a broadcast engineer for Crawford Broadcasting Corporation and use Bellsouth for my ISP. None of these even remotely apply to Mr. Ray, as you could easily have determined with the most cursory of investigations.

It's amusing that you find significance in the fact that Mr. Ray and I have both noted the lack of Y2K problems abroad. If Andy and I were the only people to note this prodigy, you might have a point.

We're not, and you don't. :)

(Note that several zillion OTHER people realized it right along with us and you'll see the light, Feybana.)

And just for the record, I don't think I've ever mentioned New Guinea. I've certainly never studied it any depth and quite frankly, while casting no aspersions on that fine nation -- I'm sure she's peopled by a fine class of soul -- I couldn't care less about the place.

But I DO know why Y2K was a non-event.

(And if you're polite, I'll tell you.)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 13, 2000.

%,

Poole is noteworthy for his belief that Ed Yourdon, Gary North and others are to blame for the government believing that y2k was a serious issue.

That's not correct (see the State of Y2K for January, 2000). I said that people like Yourdon were to blame. In fact, Yourdon himself was a surprisingly minor player in Washington, all things considered.

Gary North doesn't even fall into that group. He, Mike Hyatt and Paul Milne were fringe-element types who had FAR more influence in the Christian and ultra-right-wing communities than they EVER had in DC.

The people who were to blame for misleading SOME (not all!) in Washington were those like John Westergaard, a True-Blue Doomlit who had Pat Moynihan's ear; and Dale Way of the IEEE, Leon Kappelman, Paula Gordon, Mark Frautschi, Capers Jones, et. al., who stacked the various IT conferences in Washington HEAVILY toward the Doom view.

As I also point out in that article, there was a good bit of censorship going on, too. These people stacked the deck heavily, refusing to permit anyone to ask the single question that would have revealed the emperor's nakedness: are computers even CAPABLE of causing the level of disruptions claimed by the Doomers?

There was also the fact that some Republicans, financed by people like Richard Mellon Scaife (who helped finance both WorldNetDaily and NewsMax), were hoping to use Y2K as just one of many ways to "get" Clinton. When the American people (wisely) decided not to rise to the bait, they began to lose interest in it.

It wasn't just conservatives, either. At the other end of the spectrum, I covered how people like Dr. Helen Caldicott CLEARLY STATED that they were hoping to use Y2K fear to advance their anti-nuke agenda. She CLEARLY STATED that she wanted Y2K fear to close down nuclear power plants.

The now-infamous Mary Kay O'Connor survey of SME chemical firms was funded by the Nate-Cummings Foundation (itself a division of Tides, well-known for funding the pet projects of the left-wing for many years), with a fairly obvious goal: increasing public concern about the safety of chemical plants, with an eye to possibly shutting down many of them.

But you know what? This is just business as usual in Washington, DC. Y2K is certainly not the first time this has happened, and, as sure as death and taxes, it won't be the last. :)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 13, 2000.

No, Stephen, I guess it wasn't New Guinea that you used as a proxy for all underdeveloped countries, it was Afghanistan (where I wrote the second major application for their computer center, a fertilizer loan program for small farmers, in 1974). You are still capable of kissing off a huge portion of the world pretending that you know something about it.

And as far as arguing that you just knew for dead certain that nothing could possibly go wrong in this country, I, as a former maintenance programmer, find your "proof" just a tiny bit shallow. Wasn't it you who pontificated that the problem with Ed Yourdon was that he didn't realize that Y2K remediation was just maintenance. Of course he did. If you had ever done maintenance, you would know that that work ranges from the trivially easy to the most awful imaginable. Do you have any comprehension of the joys of spaghetti code, or of working with documentation so general as to be utterly useless. Your knowledge of programming is like your knowledge of underdeveloped countries, a fact or two here or there, conversations which are far from giving you the whole picture, and all at once you're gassing away like you really knew something.

I'll take your word for it that you aren't Andy Ray. You're pretty damn similar, tho.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 13, 2000.

ERRingman,

Hmm.

Writing a fertilizer loan program for farmers in Afghanistan could possibly give you one up on me in a weenie-wag contest. This I must humbly admit, and abase myself against said fact, even, for a brief snapshop of time.

There. I'm done. Now:

You are still capable of kissing off a huge portion of the world pretending that you know something about it.

?

And as far as arguing that you just knew for dead certain that nothing could possibly go wrong in this country, I, as a former maintenance programmer, find your "proof" just a tiny bit shallow.

Well, now I'm crushed. I may have to enroll in a 5-step plan (I'm too busy for 12 steps).

If you had ever done maintenance ...

Heh.

... you would know that that work ranges from the trivially easy to the most awful imaginable. Do you have any comprehension of the joys of spaghetti code, or of working with documentation so general as to be utterly useless.

Uh ... yeah, I've run across it a time or two. ;*

Your knowledge of programming is like your knowledge of underdeveloped countries, a fact or two here or there, conversations which are far from giving you the whole picture, and all at once you're gassing away like you really knew something.

And yet, I was dead right about Y2K. You were flat wrong. Since you've already confused me (who regularly posts from domain name servers in Birmingham/Atlanta) with Andy Ray (who regularly posts via PORTLAND, OREGON), I despair of you being able to cipher the reason why, but hey; hope springs eternal.

But anyway. It's MY turn to play detective. You see, I know who YOU are now. I've figured it out.

To give you a hint, I asked Cory Have-a-saki over in CSY2K before the transition: AW, are you gonna be mad in January when this CET -- who supposedly knows NOTHING about big-iron enterprise systems -- is dead right, and you're flat wrong?

He used the same arguments as you.

And to this day, he remains just as thunderously clueless as you.

(I mean that in only the most uplifting, "celebrate-life" kind of way.)

Therefore, you are he. ERRingman is Hamasaki.

You read it here first, folks.

(You know, this deduction stuff is easy when you have the pieces to the puzzle ...)

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), May 13, 2000.

It is absolutely true that the dumbest polly who ever posted anything did predict what came to pass better than I did. That does not vindicate such a person's reasoning. It does not vindicate after the fact nonsense, such as: "Well, those countries really weren't dependent on computers" or assuming that some country did nothing and therefore the United States didn't have to make a big effort.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 13, 2000.

Why The Power Will Fail In 2000

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0010xS

-- (Internet@electricity.rumors), May 13, 2000.

HEY DOOM ZOMBIE ERRINGTON,

POOLE, CPR AND ANDY-RAY (ALONG WITH 99.99999% OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION) WERE CORRECT ABOUT Y2K.

ATTEMPTS TO CLAIM THAT IT WAS "VAST IGNORANCE" BY THE BULK OF THE POPULATION ARE SPURIOUS. Y2K "AWARENESS" WAS WELL OVER 90% BY EVERY POLL EVER TAKEN FROM 1998 IN THE USA.

IF THERE WERE "TRUE POLLIES" THEY WERE IN LORD JIMBO DUMBO'S DOT TO DOMAIN CELEBRATING WITH THEIR KING WHEN THE SUN ROSE ON 1/1/2000 AND LAUGHING AT THE AMERICAN EXTREMIST ASSHOLES.

THE DOOM ZOMBIES AND FELLOW TRAVELLERS LIKE YOU, WERE WRONG.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO "GET IT"?????????

THE WORLD IS NOW COMPOSED OF NON-DOOMERS AND ALL OTHERS.

THE TERM "POLLIES" WAS ***ALWAYS** A SET UP FOR THE DOOM CULT YOU THINK HAS THE SLIGHTEST BIT OF CREDIBILITY.

THERE WERE DOOMERS AND "NON-DOOMERS" (AKA: THE DE-BUNKERS) WITH THE MODERATES AND OTHERS WERE SMEARED OVER AND OVER AS "POLLIES".

WHERE IS YOUR STUDY THAT THE Y2K REMEDIATORS FORCED THE COMPANIES TO SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY?

YOU SWING FROM ISSUE TO ISSUE WITHOUT FACTS AND THEN TRY TO ACCUSE ANYONE WHO POINTS THAT OUT WITH *SMEARS*.

YOU "HAZARD A GUESS" AND THEN SMEAR ANY

-- Peter Errington writes and I insert:

It is absolutely true that the dumbest polly who ever posted anything did predict what came to pass better than I did.

AND WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY ABOUT YOUR MENTAL ABILITIES?

That does not vindicate such a person's reasoning.

WHY NOT?

It does not vindicate after the fact nonsense, such as: "Well, those countries really weren't dependent on computers" or assuming that some country did nothing and therefore the United States didn't have to make a big effort.

YOU HAVE TO BE THE DUMBEST DOOMER IN THE DUNCE CORNER. YOU CONTRADICT YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.

MOST OF THE "PREDICTIONS" OF THOSE "DUMB" POLLIES WERE MADE **BEF0RE** THE CDC.

THAT.....IS WHY.......THEY ARE CALLED "PREDICTIONS".

AS USUAL, YOU BRING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO THE TABLE EXCEPT **BLANKET AND SWEEPING STATEMENTS"......SUCH AS:

"willingness to make blanket statements about areas about which he knows nothing"

WHEN IN POINT OF FACT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT, POOLE OR ANDY RAY OR CPR OR ALAN SIMPSON OR de JAGER OR **ANY**....NON-DOOMER HAD ANY INFORMATION ABOUT FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND THE STATE OF THE COMPUTER SYSTEMS THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN USING.

QUESTION FOR ERRING-BOY:

WHEN................ARE YOU FINALLY GOING TO "GET IT"????????? .

-- The Shadow Knows (Shadow@knows.con), May 13, 2000.

Peter Errington: 'OK, Poole let's get down to the nitty gritty'

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0039HY

-- (thread@to.thread), May 13, 2000.

Why is the Doomer Vs Polly thing heating up NOW? Sheeesh, shup up already, all of you. There is an ego competition here that is a drag. I don't know who Andy Ray is and I don't care. I confess I don't like him and I wish he'd go away. I believe that in time he will go away.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), May 13, 2000.

Who is Andy Ray? He's a male net persona. Who is Stephen Poole? Why should I care?

The best clues to Andy Ray as a personality, rather than a persona, are the clues dropped inadvertantly, the material he chooses to make his points. Judging by that, Andy is a grad student who wants to make a career in academia. Most likely in a social science discipline.

He is very much in love with his own abilities, but doesn't yet realize he suffers from a distinct lack of brilliance. When Andy Ray finally readjusts his self image to a size consistant with his talents, he will become a much more likeable and valuable human being.

At this stage in his life, he would dearly love to be taken for a genius, without actually having to produce the work of a genius to substaniate his claim. This makes him, like so many others in academia, a poseur preening for other poseurs and sucking up to the full professors. What he really needs to grasp is that work is the only ticket to where he wants to go. But, he will learn. He's a fairly bright guy.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 13, 2000.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I just read this for the first time-

"One of these days I'm going to astound you all by revealing who Super Polly really is. "

Go for it, erring-a-ton! You have no idea who I am. Neither do any of your clueless y2kultist friends....

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), July 06, 2000.

I've never seen this gentleman in the same room with Andy Ray.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=002223691358122&rtmo=qXpd9qu9&atmo=99 999999&pg=/et/missions/y2k/bob.html

Cashing in on Y2K

The third expert witness in our Y2K forum is Bob Johnson-Perkins, IT Research Analyst at Visionaries IT. He thinks most Y2K problems are easily solved and that anyone who says different is just out to make a fast buck. What's more, he's offering $10,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong. Here's how...

Since 1995 many analysis and technicians have been very concerned over the lack of research into the Y2K issue. It is only since late 1998 that governments and their departments have started to investigate the problems for their own peace of mind. Theory has taken precedence over fact, which has caused waste of public money and soaring corporate Y2K budgets.

Now SME's are being influenced into resolving their Y2K problems in a last ditch publicity campaign by governments and by leading members of the Y2K industry that has built itself around the problem. We have seen theory after theory being formulated by greed and the desire to make money out of the very consumers who require cost-effective solutions to a very real problem. The problem is less complex and easier to solve than these unscrupulous traders claim.

The BIOS ROM date retention problem is just a 24-hour glitch which is no true cause for alarm. The embedded system problem is very similar to the ROM BIOS problem and just as easy resolved.

Over the period of 3 years Visionaries IT has supplied many solutions that prove that the Y2K problems are easily resolved. I have raised a US$1,000 bet to Y2K Internet News group members, challenging them to show proof that our research facts are incorrect; so far nobody has accepted the challenge. This bet is now open to anyone who can disprove the Millennium Benchmark tests at visit.internet2000- Plc.com. We are now raising the stake to US$10,000 to make it a more interesting proposal.

We do hope that any further debates and revelations on the Y2K problem will now focus on providing solutions.

For example, changing two-digit year data into four-digit data is easily resolved however the big the problem. By using a Millennium compliant spreadsheet application, the solution is as easy as importing the database file and saving the data. Compliant spreadsheets automatically change two-digit year date fields into four-digit. CVS and ASCII files can be imported into compliant database files - the two-digit year date fields can be simply changed into long date fields, eg 1 January 1999 instead of 01/01/99. When saved and imported to ASCII or CVS files the date is saved as "01/01/1999". Let's have more solutions such as these, please, and fewer barren statements on how big the Y2K problem is thought to be.

The problems of readiness by public services will mainly be resolved by October 1999, but still we constantly see stupid remarks that these providers are not millennium ready yet. The problems of the third world are now being grossly overestimated, ignoring the fact that developing countries have few problems due to a minimum reliance on computer technology.

To my mind there are no Y2K problems too big to solve and still plenty of time to resolve them with the use of common sense and good solid administration. Anything else is utter nonsense, however dressed up in techno-garble or academic theory. There has been many a budding expert throughout the last three years making quotes, writing books and giving speeches. The interesting fact is that few of these Y2K gurus have field-tested any of the theories or have held any post as a computer scientist.

To be completely frank there will not be many causes for alarm on 1 January 2000, most problems being resolved within 24 hours to three days if they do occur.

This fact should not give false security: we should all give of our best to ensure that problems are kept to a minimum, with safety being the most important priority. There are needles in many haystacks - please rake very carefully!

-- (*@*.**), July 07, 2000.

I wanted so little from y2k. Really. Just for all the mysteries to be explained, all the loose ends tied up, not too long after the rollover. (Kinda like the tv drama programs used to do with their end-of-episode epilogues.) And now we only have a little more than 12 hours to do it all! (Isn't there a song to that effect from My Fair Lady?)

BTW, NetGhost = LL.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), July 07, 2000.

W0lv3r1n3 is Andy Ray.

-- Spotted (it@long.ago), July 07, 2000.

BTW, NetGhost = LL.

-- Whatever (who@car.es), July 07, 2000.

You're really new here aren't you?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 07, 2000.

OK, OK, I confess. I'm Andy Ray when I'm feeling about 16. I'm also Netghost when I feel stupid, and LL and cpr when I'm drunk. I haven't been either Errington or Poole yet, but I'm thinking about it.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 07, 2000.

And just plain old Flint when he's feeling like a pompous ass.

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 07, 2000.

Naw, I can assure you that Netghost is not LL. She ripped this boy a new one and sent him on his way. Aint that right Mark, cavscout, and other disguises.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 07, 2000.

Clearly, I was feeling stupid right then [grin].

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 07, 2000.

I don't know about Andy Ray, but I've always thought Ra and MFB were the same person.

-- Citizen Ruth (ruth_parker@yahoo.com), July 07, 2000.

Ruth darlin I doubt if you could find two people more opposed than MFB and myself. Is this your final answer?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 07, 2000.

Ra, were you born this stupid or did you study somewhere?

Laura knows exactly who I am as we've exchanged a number of e-mails and pictures... I can't say we are good friends but our truce has held for what?... 5 months now?... have you even been around that long?

Flint, lol :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), July 07, 2000.