Hey, Hey, Andy Raygreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Hey, Hey, Andy Ray,Will You Admit The Truth Today?
No, Not That You Are Gay And Post In Green,
(For That Has Been Plainly Seen)
But Rather That Flint Has An Infectious Doomer Meme
Quotably Quoted #12
-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 05, 2000
Andy reminds me of a guy being pulled out of a bar fight, kicking and screaming, while his friends drag him out the door..."THIS AIN'T OVER! I'LL BE BACK! I'M GOING TO COME BACK HERE, AND GET ALL YOU *$*$*$* MEMES!"
Jeez Andy, the fight is over. Your side won.
Now let's all go do something constructive, like..., like..., I know! Let's go fight with Stephen in the tax thread!!!
<:666= (evil grin)...
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000.
BS Sysman. You are pure unadulterated BS walking and talking. And have been. The people on Yahoo Y2k spotted that right away.
Andy Ray is just asking for one single one of you Freaking Clowns to take responsibility for MISLEADING OTHERS WILLFULLY.
And that it would seem is too much for anyone of you who insist, "Its over. Lets forget all about it now."
You are just another who passes off all sense of responsibility for your own **errors in judgements** after demanding for years that everyone should listen to you because of your "expertise".
Then you use the EY/Big Jerk Cop Out that "everyone is responsible for their own actions". EVER AFTER YOU ALL MISLEAD THEM ON TB I.So the bottom line for YOU all is simple: your were wrong so now: SHOVE IT.
Sysman at his "finest". Everyone should just "forgeddaboutit" because he was wrong. But like Big Dog who wasn't even a real techie, both chanted "Its coming, Its coming, its not Y2k yet and thats why they call it the Y2k Problem.". ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++ http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00139g I guess you don't know how to connect the dots Andy. You dismiss the IEEE report because they don't list the part number? Get real. You dismiss the 90+ items listed on the Motorola link because they don't list the test procedure? Get real. I guess you'll dismiss this link for the same reason, even though it does list the manufacturer and part number: Medical Devices With Known Y2K Related Defects (ANON: FORGET THIS ONE: MOSTLY OBSCURE DEVICES/MFGS. http://www.mardon- y2k.com/badmeddev.htm) And I suppose this link doesn't meet your standards either: Y2K List of Failures Part 4 I doubt that you're serious about this. If you are, do your own damned research, and stop wasting our time with this silly game. <:)= -- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 07, 1999. Which lead to this lovely bit of work for someone who was just trying to find the facts? (or re-distributing propaganda?) but is now "AWOL" "Rob Michaels" at a phony e-mail add.: Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), April 11, 1999 http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000htg READ ONLY - Please do not post to this thread - Y2K List of Failures Part 4 greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Here are the Links to the previous Y2K Failure Lists - Parts 1, 2, and 3, followed by the new Part 4. Part One http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ZXI Part Two http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000ZXJ Part Three http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eK7 Part Four 40. Source: Windows Magazine Online April 01, 1999, Issue: 1004 Section: Solutions Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), April 11, 1999
-- Anon (anon@anon.anon), June 05, 2000.
Anon,That's an kool name. At least when I was at Yahoo, or TB2000, or CSY2K, or Debunky, or any of the other sites that I've visited discussing Y2K, I've always been known as Sysman. Guess you can't say the same...
Before I try to read what you posted, let me say this. I guess you haven't been here in a while. I've said too many times that it's over. I've said too many times that I was wrong. And I've said too many times that I will not be sorry for saying what I believed to be the truth at the time.
Why don't you go comment on the thread that I just started about IBM and the Red Cross. They were wrong too. So was the .gov.
If you can't accept me, it's your loss. I guess I've got to say this again too. I've been making up with some of my old polly "enemies" around here. People like Stephen Poole and Chicken Little (that I would stay up 'til the wee hours agruing with), are getting along just fine now. I think I've even made up with LadyLogic, but that wouldn't be a first... And others, like Flint and FactFinder, I've always considered "friends" even if they were pollys.
Seeme to me that Andy, and maybe you, are the ones that want to keep the war going.
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000.
And Anon,re. your "quote", I made a comment on that a few days ago here:
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 05, 2000.
In case anyone was in doubt, "anon" is the inimitable CPR. His brand of gibberish is hard to mistake for anyone else's.
-- Sergeant Friday (Just.The@facts.Maam), June 06, 2000.
Yes. Anon is cpr. cpr posts on a lot of threads using multiple handles. He started this habit on Debunke's, where he often used it to create the illusion that people were talking to him. How pitiful is that? Notice, too, that Flint, Decker, et al. express no problem with this. Yet, they are the first to resort to name-calling of others who use anonymous names or email addreses. Wonder why?
-- (cpr@is.psycho), June 06, 2000.
This is news?.... LMAO... someone else finally got it !!!!!!!!
-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), June 06, 2000.
Sysman,Nice all that IBM/Red Cross stuff. So what is your point? That you were unable to do what us dumbass pollies could do? It bugs you...it bugs you that someone like me told you so for over a fat year ahead of time that Y2k was nothing to worry your little fanny over,,,AND WHY IT WASN'T. I give you the whole enchilada on why, I give you the real cause(memes), and you SIX MONTHS after the fact are still posting this dribble and boasting about it as to why you and your fellow Sheeple went off the cliff?
So you Sysman were wrong,,,but apparently the sorry part is still cooking. Well not till ya get over that one will ya learn anything.
-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), June 06, 2000.
Sysman --For someone who claims to be "sorry," "over it" and "past it all now," you sure won't let things lie, will you?
If you really *are* all of those things, then why don't you just let the posts from Andy Ray and CPR stand without comment? Let them say what they're going to say, and let it go. Whether they are baiting you or not is really irrelevant, assuming you really are sorry and really do want to put things in the past. Let 'em post, and just rise above the fray. A gentleman of character should be able to do that.
I'm willing to believe you and accept your apology, but you stretch my credulity and good will each time you hit back.
I "got it" when you apologized. Don't make me sorry I trusted and believed you then, okay? =-]
Let it go, Sysman.
-- Lurkinator (Lurky.formerly@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.
Lurkinator,You have gained my respect, because you have shown that you are able to change your opinion, of me in this case... One more thing that I'm sorry for, is that you and I got off on the wrong foot at Yahoo. Who knows, we could have been "friends". Maybe someday we will be.
Yea, I should ignore Andy. In fact, I was doing a pretty good job of just that, until he felt the need to start a thread, asking I was still ticking...
Should I ignore that? If I did, next he could accuse me of trying to hide. And next, he would say that I support him, because of my silence!!! How many times have we seen just that "line of thinking".
Andy called me out, and I just want to let him know that I'm still here. Whenever he deceides to change the topic, maybe I'll start ignoring him again...
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 06, 2000.
We just have to wonder if Andy Ray, Doc Paulie, CPR, have written such letters to the government?Why dont they go after them as well. Good luck fellas.
-- fedup (Enuf@the.crap), June 06, 2000.
Sysman --"Should I ignore that? If I did, next he could accuse me of trying to hide."
Sysman, you'll never be able to control what someone thinks of you or what they say about you. I realize this may sound all new-agey and touchy-feely, but just let it slide off you. If you feel compelled to respond, then just say "yes, I'm here," and leave it at that.
Remember, it takes *two* people (or more) to have an argument. If you stop arguing, then Andy Ray will either have to pipe down or pontificate without benefit of your responses. And you know what? Either way, you'll probably sleep better at night.
Sure, some of the people who agree with Andy may jump up and down, crowing about how they've cowed you into silence or "beaten" you. So what? Fifty years from now, will you still care? Will you even care fifty *days* from now?
After the rollover, the doomer regulars at Yahoo got the board pulled down (out of embarrassment?) and then ran for cover. Was I upset? Sure, at the time. Does it matter? No. I don't need to prove anything, and the people who were responsible *know* who they are and *know* what they did. If they reappear on the Yahoo board (yes, there's a successor), I'll probably give them what-for when they first show their faces, but I can't see keeping a cat-and-dog fight up six months later. That's not debate, that's obsession.
The fact of the matter is, they were wrong. Heck, *I* was wrong, and I was pretty darn optimistic. At any rate, they were provably and demonstrably wrong, and they know it, regardless of whether they accept it or not. If *they* can accept *that,* then *I* can accept *them.* If they still want to argue, then they can argue with someone else. There's nothing to be gained from further argument, except perhaps and inflated ego and some primal Alpha pack-wolf feeling, from perpetuating the argument.
It's nothing more than a pissing match at this stage.
"And next, he would say that I support him, because of my silence!!!"
So what? Why keep the argument up? It doesn't matter who "wins." In fact, if it'll put a stop to the argument, then why don't you just *let* him win? Then everyone can go back to whatever else they want to talk about.
"Andy called me out, and I just want to let him know that I'm still here."
That's all I'm saying. Just raise your hand and say "yo." Other than that, I think you're just letting yourself get baited.
"Whenever he deceides to change the topic, maybe I'll start ignoring him again..."
Avoid the rush. Start ignoring him now. Trust me, you'll feel better. =-]
-- Lurkinator (Lurky.formerly@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.
Lurkinator:True WISDOM!!!!
-- consumer (shh@aol.com), June 07, 2000.
Hey, hey, lube in a spray,Why not get a life today.
Your words against Andy,
Are not very dandy,
For it sounds just like phffft when you bray!
-- Ra (tion@l.1), June 07, 2000.
Lurk,I will give your advice serious consideration.
<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.
Sysman,A real OT question, is your beard forked? Always wondered why you didn't use a <:) > or <:)>
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 07, 2000.
No, my beard isn't forked. My e-con goes back to the BBS days, when it looked much better in DOS. Hummm, I was also younger then too...<:)=
-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), June 07, 2000.
Sysman,On my monitor, it looks like you should be leaving a trail of %^( .. behind you (after your nighttime meals).
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 08, 2000.
I see that that the little twerp STILL is ducking the question.As Diane used to say: *SIGH*
-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), June 08, 2000.
Nobody really gives a rat's ass about your question. Have you not figured that out by now?
-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), June 08, 2000.