Re: Response to Have we gone off the deep end of the Y2K pool?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
Re: Response to Have we gone off the deep end of the Y2K pool?Sorry Yourdon team, but I just have to go public with this one!
I received this private and unsolicited e-mail from Adam of the Have we gone off the deep end of the Y2K pool? thread. (Hallyx, please note, I received this after your private response to him):
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000Nyj---Y2KSrvivor@aol.com wrote:
> You know to me it's nice to hear about the Nation Guard mobilizing for potential problems and "issues" and doesn't concern me in the least bit. I mean yeah sure the possibilty remains for blackouts and you know that it only takes a few hours for the young inner city youths to start looting once they realize the power is off. So I think it's great the NG is preparing. They sure as heck don't want to sit around not doing anything if the crisis arises. And all this COMM-OUT talk is sort of intriuging, but I wouldn't go around screaming fire just yet. For all we know the drills are just that, drills. Emergency response preperations. Stop analyzing the situation so much and don't take Red Cross's warnings to mean that all this stuff people talk about is going to happen. It's just the ounce of prevention as opposed to the pound of cure. >
My OPEN response:
Dear Y2KSrvivor@aol.com,
Kid, until, you've demonstrated an ability to do your Y2K homework well, please don't stoop to being condescending.
Nice to hear about the National Guard mobilizing like this when nothing LIKE this has occurred since WWII? What planet do you inhabit, little one?
There is more than a possibility for blackouts. Digging behind the government scenes and smoke screens proves that they think so too.
I AM also grateful that the National Guard is preparing. In order to best HELP them do their job well, people from all walks of life need to be prepared too. A prepared people is less likely to do really stupid things, IMHO. A prepared community is even more powerful, and peaceful.
Sorry, but I, and others here and elsewhere on the net, will continue to pay attention to the smoke signals sent up by the American Red Cross, FEMA, the Presidents Council on Year 2000 Conversion, the President, the U.S. Senate, the United Nations, the DoD, the National Guard, the corporate and small business community, the global economic community -- especially Japan, China, Brazil, Indonesia, and Russia, et. al. So much evidence of a fire burning in the hold. Not ice, or iceberg.
I also KNOW they have a much bigger snapshot of the ever illusive truth of the Y2K landscape than you do, Y2KSrvivor@aol.com.
In fact, Im positive they do.
Many of us are also equally positive, that they are dis-informing the world about Y2K issues, readiness and potential repercussions. Not to mention a whole host of other issues. Y2K and terrorism being just one of many.
They are doing a fair job of keeping gullible people like you, complacent, little one. At your expense, and that of the rest of the planet. NOT at their expense. Yet.
Diane, still a 5 on the Y2K and beyond richter scale, today.
P.S. See also ... Have we gone off the deep end II:
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000OAe
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999
Great response, Diane. And you know, I think that Adam (and Deano et al) typify what it takes to be a Y2K optimist in January 1999. When you hear about the Red Cross warnings, the National Guard mobilizing, utilities not ready, etc., etc., you just have to take a "roll with the punches" attitude and just say "Nawww, it won't really be that bad, and if it is, we will just kinda fix it as it happens. No biggie."
Which is why my all time favorite Y2K analogy is the Jews in Germany after Hitler took over. They had all the information needed to see what was going to happen (in particular the book Mein Kampf, by A.Hitler), but most did nothing. A few saw what was going to happen and got out, but these were the very few exceptions.
-- Jack (jsprat@eld.net), January 15, 1999.
Diane,The reason I sent that e-mail just to you was because I no longer felt the need to give my humbled opinion on this mess on the Time Bomb 2000 forum. I don't care what you say when you take private words and twist them around to suit your own self indulgent needs.
Your sick Your foolish Your full of Pride
And none of the above applies to the Y2K issue or your view points thereon.
-- Adam (perplexed@whocares.com), January 15, 1999.
That's what happens, Adam, when boys play games with men and women. Take your bloody nose and hurt feelings elsewhere.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Jack:Holocaust=Y2K ???
Damn man, now I have heard everything. Wake up and smell the smelling sauce little snoozy. This is about Y2K, not an evil plot to annhilate the "inferior race" by a madman like Adolph Hitler.
For crying out loud! Get a grip
-- Adam (perplexed@whocares.com), January 15, 1999.
Franklin, I can take the punches with no complaint when they are ABOVE the belt. This is a forum, not a kickboxing competition. private e-mail is just that. She even took my response totally out of context when she did make them public. But thats typical, and I won't say why.But I bet your the kind of person who just loves to see people's feelings hurt anyway, so I doubt you'd care either way.
-- Adam (laughable@BS.commies), January 15, 1999.
If Diane the spirit-rallying optimist -- who is flamed by Milne and others -- notices our Military seriously ramping up for Y2K, as a result of her in-depth investigating Net nugget digging, and brings these developments to our Forum -- PAY ATTENTION!Diane does not go rooting out the Net for bad news to back up her gloomerdoomer position: she is an OPTIMIST!
Be careful who you put down, lest it punch you below the ground. Know Your Posters before opinionizing is a good policy ;-)
Ashton & Leska in Cascadia, thankful for Diane's research
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 15, 1999.
Okay, I will.Call it Troll Relief. Especially when its dirty underwear. (Is that really you Jimmy Bagga? Sounds like you).
From: Y2KSrvivor@aol.comAdd to Address Book Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:39:54 EST To: sacredspaces@yahoo.com Subject: Here's something else you can add to the forum:
You can take the rest of your opinions and blow them out your a$$, or put them in your pipe and smoke them. Whatever the hell gets you off from taking private e-mail and waiving it around like a pair of dirty underwear. If I wanted to add what I had to say to the entire forum, then I would have posted it there you putz.
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Since when is it a good policy to distact the reader from a simple fact by adding obscure BS like " This hasn't happned since WWII ". Maybe not, but just because RED CROSS, FEMA , and the NG says there will be problems doesn't give anyone a 100% guarentee that there will be. No one has a 100% gaurentee that it won't either, and thats why NG wants to be ready... ready ... ready...The key word here being ready.
It's the Better to be safe than sorry approach... not the We have inside info that leads us to beleive there is a disaster ahead.
And as far as Diane's character goes, I'm sure she is as big of an idiot as Gatry North and his little army of recunstructionists. She can counter that weakly by calling me "kiddo", "junior" and even by putting my name in quotation marks..."adam". But that doesn't the chnage the fact that she is a pompous twit and I wouldn't take her advice if she wrote it down on the back of a thousand dollar bill.
And BTW, I do have enough cahonies to put my real name down. Yep, it's "Adam"
-- Adam (BSmeter@diane.com), January 15, 1999.
And what's more Leska, Adam shows his immature inability to understand Diane with this sentence:"Your sick Your foolish Your full of Pride"
(Appart from being a flame) -He sees Diane as sick and foolish(wacky); bright people are viewed as wacky from those who can't understand what they say. -He sees her as full of pride; immature mistaking of confidence and self-esteem for a negative misplaced pride.
Is it still cold up there Diane? ;-)
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 15, 1999.
To All - I had absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with this bickering (today).......But I like it.........:-)Deano
-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), January 15, 1999.
Ms. Diane:Private Email is exactly as it states and implies. It is Private.
Under no circumstances should it be made public without the express prior permission of the other party involved. You have behaved in a manner more suited to a street thug than to a lady of integrity, and I find that your conduct is very much unbecoming of a lady, as you were once thought to be.
You no longer have my trust in you, nor in any of the posts that you may make.
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 15, 1999.
Chris,That is the silliest Freudian thing I have heard in my life. Sometimes a putz is just a putz.
-- Adam (Notgoingtolaugh@chris.com), January 15, 1999.
Hi Chris! I think what long-time YourDoneEre's notice is that Diane, while being flamed at times from the left and right, holds steady and keeps contributing solid reporting to this Forum.Diane is able to synthesize and analyze information and change her position as the facts warrant. She is also the first to say, "I don't know," or "This doesn't add up," or "It's getting weird!"
Nobody is perfect, but I think the ones who really irritate the serious Y2K truth-seekers are the trolls who get down and dirty and try to distract and muddy the issues. Because of the recent squid-slew maybe Diane is allergically sensitized to TrollDumb.
We need INVAR!
At least the trolls have abated somewhat since the Holiday vacation span! Now to get back to keeping up with Y2K news -- as if *that's* possible with ssooooo many articles coming out every day:
http://y2knews.com/
Gosh, I really should go there before coming here: discipline, discipline ....xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 15, 1999.
Sorry to so offend you S.O.B.,In the normal course of events I do not post "private" e-mail. But in the correct context, Hallyx had just shared with me something he had sent her, and she shared her response to him with me.
It is her choice to share with you, or not. And I won't violate her confidence.
Adam, on the other hand is pretending to be one thing and acting as another. He, IMHO, is in the troll class. And attempting to cause dissention and discord, and disinformation.
I will blow the same whistle on Koskinen, as I do on Adam.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
I find it interesting that someone who openly admitted to perpetuating a hoax on us all is ripe with moral indignation over having this particlular unsolicited "private" email made public. I do not believe that its publication is a threat to anything but your agenda.
-- Sue (conibear@gateway.net), January 15, 1999.
Um, Diane? I think SOB's right. You shouldn't post private e-mail. Bad netiquette, ya know. Go back three spaces in the credibility game...Adam? you said - :Holocaust=Y2K...This is about Y2K, not an evil plot to annhilate...bla bla bla...
I still think there's an important concept that you don't seem to understand regarding people's concerns. Nobody REALLY gives a damn about the technical aspects of this. It's the state of the world NOW and the possibilities for the state of the world AFTER 01/01/00 that people are concerned about.
The world is a big mess right now. Yes, one could easily argue that this has ALWAYS been the case, but now we seem to be dangerously overloading the planet and dangerously overdependant on technology to keep us afloat. And really, when it comes down to it, it's all about mothers fearing for their kids future.
So, one could say that the evidence does not clearly point to the level of problems that folks are concerned about. But should the mothers take that risk with their kids' lives?
-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam,Felicitations! (on the size and character of your "cahonies"--you wouldn't happen to mean cajones would you now, boy?)
S.O.B.,>/b>
I understand and agree with your position, but all rules and regs have an exception. Considering that "Adam" is a confessed troll and "set the rules" of honesty, so to speak, by his conduct here, I submit that he has no "right to privacy" such as an honest and "real" personality does.
Diane has spoken to this point for herself, and FWIW I for one do not view her actions as making her worthy of distrust.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 15, 1999.
Sorry 'bout that!
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 15, 1999.
Diane.gnosis Just In:
Diane is suffering from an acute form of Trollitis.This dis-ease is marked by inflammatory viral reactions to mutant aggressive repeated foreign vitriol attacks of under-bridge baiting. The sufferer appears to be in the middle of an outbreak episode, exhibiting uncharacteristic behavior and allergic sensitivity.
Oh no! This condition has been found to be contagious. The first symptoms include a twitching mindless reflex of the Submit Response finger ... aaaggggghhhhhhh !!
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 15, 1999.
Hardliner:This is USA , I'll amerikanize whichever word I feel like, 'cause I got the cahonies to. But if you think that one bad worded document is punishable by a hundred responses of wildly accusatory statements like "fool" , "troll" and countless others than you must be hardheaded as well as a hardliner. I said... I agree with some of what I wrote, and disagree on some other. And I qualified it with the fact that I wanted to generate a response to OBVIOUSLY a very real question... "Have WE gone off the deep end? "
Unwaveringly... si mi amigos y amigas.... si.
-- Adam (speedygonzales@WB.com), January 15, 1999.
Ms. Diane:>>>In the normal course of events I do not post "private" e-mail. But in the correct context, Hallyx had just shared with me something he had sent her, and she shared her response to him with me.
It is her choice to share with you, or not. And I won't violate her confidence. <<<
I note that Ms. Hallyx privately E-mailed to you in reference to this "Adam" person. She has the right to do so, and it is correct and proper for her to do so if she so desires. I do not care to know the details of the posts, and I would presume that Ms. Hallyx will maintain the confidentiality of the posts, as pertains to hers, Adam's and yours. Should she choose to post the E-mail that "Adam" sent to her I would view it just as negatively as I do your posting.
This in no way excuses your actions in posting that private E-mail.
You should afford to "Adam" the same courtesy and regard as you afford to Ms. Hallyx as regards the confidentiality of the E-mail. There should be no double standards.
You were, and you remain, wrong in your actions. Please let this be the single exception to your long, and very much appreciated, string of outstanding posts. I personally will place far less credence in your posts as a result of this.
Your honor and integrity have been placed into question by your actions.
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 15, 1999.
Yes, pshannon, it is poor net behavior. I humbly accept the minus three points, along with my much earlier stone collection. Im just tired of the trolls, pretending to help or harm. They are self appointed digital weapons of mass destruction. Arent you tired of them?S.O.B., in case this escaped you...
As pointed out on the other thread, Adam, alias (Y2KSrvivor@aol.com):
[AOL] Profile for:
Y2K Survivor
Member Name: Y2K Bug
Location: Global
Birthdate: the 70's
Hobbies: Ruining the lives of happy , modern man. And basically reaking havok on everything
Computers: I'll use them all for my own wicked scheme to end the world
Occupation: Mainframe Virus and part time PC Glitch
Personal Quote: This is the latest up to date comments/news site: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Time Bomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29
Question Adam.
So why do you pick on the Yourdon forum to reek your havoc?
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam,More, More! Please continue to expose the brilliance of your thought processes as well as your command of our language and your understanding of what living in the USA entitles you to do.
-fin.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 15, 1999.
Trolls=scum, Adam=Trolls, Adam=scum
-- Nikoli Krushev (DOOMSDAY@Y2000.COM), January 15, 1999.
Nikoli Krushev;>Trolls=scum, Adam=Trolls, Adam=scum<
Agreed.
Ms. Diane: You are correct, I had overlooked the reply from Ms. Hallyx in the other post. Why then your statement "private reply" in your original post?
This still does not excuse your posting of a private E-mail.
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 15, 1999.
What Diane didn't say is that I deleted the profile out of respect for the seriousness of Y2K... But those little tidbits always go uncovered until after the ceremonial witch burning don't they.Hardliner:
This IS America... Number one... Free Speech. Go blow it out your a$$
-- Adam (1@1.com), January 15, 1999.
Nik,Scum huh?
Well well well, having another bittersweet day?
-- Adam (ToNIk@TM2.com), January 15, 1999.
Hey, Diane, it's only three points. You can afford it.Look, gang, I'm sure Adam is probably a nice guy.He's not the enemy. None of us is the enemy. He just maybe did something that was a little misguided. Oh, well, it was his turn. Trawling for trolls is certainly fun, but I don't want to make a career out of it. What d'ya say we call a truce on this guy? Maybe his next contribution will be truely valuable...
just my 2 pesos worth...
-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), January 15, 1999.
pshannon;>What d'ya say we call a truce on this guy? Maybe his next contribution will be truely valuable...
just my 2 pesos worth...<
Agreed. There will be peace between Adam and me, and between myself and Ms. Diane as well. She can consider herself to have been severely critiqued about the head and shoulders, fifty lashes with a wet noodle, etc.
Fair warning to all: The next one who posts private E-mail gets taken out back for a "wood shed" lesson, so before you do it you might want to go on out there and practice falling down, because I will be there very shortly after the post.
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam. Not bittersweet, just bitter. Let's backtrack a little here. When I read your opening paragraph yesterday about your 3 days of hard study, I automatically assumed it was a joke. Surely you couldn't be serious. Nobody is that stupid. Well almost nobody. Your response to my laughing about it indicated you were serious, and stupid. I don't like to laugh at stupid people so I apologized, which you accepted, you understood,yada yada. You then proceeded to defend your idiotic origional post using my "Freezing Children" as proof that we are all a bunch of wackos on this board. When I pointed out to you that frozen children are not only possible, but quite likely if the grid goes down in the dead of winter you made no acknowledgement at all. After being thoroughly beaten to the ground by the irrefuteable logic of the other respondees, you retreated to a position of your origional post being a ruse. Frankly I think your origional post as seen in hindsight was dead serious. Either way there is ample proof that you are either an idiot or a liar, and most likely both.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday @y2000.com), January 15, 1999.
Being a Rastafarian, I am used to enemies on all sides. The truce is between us and Jah ( God ). I made that truce and everyone in Jah's creation is my brother and sister. I wish only to invoke brotherhood and unity. Maybe I still need work, but Jah makes no man perfect.You got to admit though it's been a provoking thread and whatever you may call me it's all irrelevant. I stand by my convictions and my words. But I do feel badly that I hadn't thought some of them out with better reasoning and admittedly this has gone too far. I'll keep my OPINIONS about the future my own from now on.
-- Adam (Jah@Zion.com), January 15, 1999.
What we're missing from you "Adam" is an apology for your adolescent, misleading behavior. How about it, bud?
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Oh my God Nik, that wasn't EVEN ME who said that about the children!!Damn, I am being cruicified for things I haven't said!
-- Adam (ohlord@god.com), January 15, 1999.
Franklin:I won't apologize for posing a good question and giving sound advice. Which was to not create bank runs and other supply runs causing panic.
Read back to my original question and you might see that. Adolescent huh, is that going to be everyone's only saving grace? To write me off as a child?
-- Adam (FrankliniISwrong@times.com), January 15, 1999.
Sigh. Adam, you purposely misled the participants on this forum. As Hardliner put it, you yanked everybody's chain -- now you're blubbering about how unfairly you're being treated.I'm saying that your little stunt was childish, that your continued whining about it is even more childish, and that you owe this forum an apology. There're a lot of good folks here and they'll accept it.
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam, I don't have the time or the inclination to go back and re-read that thread to point out where you said it. It is pretty lengthy. If you say you didn't say it I will accept that at face value, and you will hear no more from me about it. It is entirely possible I assigned the post to the wrong person as so many people were quoting segments of other people. If I have wrongly accused you I formally apologize once again, but that still does not excuse what you did and the consequences it has lead to. Ok I'm done.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 15, 1999.
I have been hanging out on this forum forever and I've never seen chemistry gone so wrong amongst participants............ever.
-- lisa (lisab@shallc.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam started it!!!!!!!;-D
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Read the original question I posed... If you see something so wrong with it that you all shout I need to apologize then fine I will...Everything I said after it was in my own defense.
And to tell you the truth Lisa, maybe there is a big black cloud of resentment here and around the world. But like Seneca says... " A bad peace is even worse than war "
-- Adam (To @ll.com), January 15, 1999.
For that matter, go back reread the e-mail I sent Diane... what was so wrong with that?? That started a whole new thread of Adam bashing and to tell you the truth it doesn't hurt me a bit. But it's sad to see how the gossip game gets played in reality. Remember the gossip game? I say one thing... Diane takes it and turns it into something other than what i said, and so on and so on and son on. Al I did was tell her not to jump to conclusions about the NG mobilization.. gee, shame on me...
-- Adam (notright@aol.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam, you were correct about not saying that.My sincerest apology. I return to my neuthral corner.
-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), January 15, 1999.
Ok, Adam, your apology is next. C'mon. "I'm sorry for yanking peoples' chains just to have fun..."
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
Adam, that'd be cojones rather than cahonies , unless that isn't what you meant...
-- Blue Himalayan (bh@k2.y), January 15, 1999.
Franklin:Are you in the journalism job? If so I want to see YOUR three thousand apologies to the American people for printing stories just to jerk their chains.
But I am sorry that your such a conservative tightass.
-- Adam (lastpost@TB2000.com), January 15, 1999.
Eeuuuuhhh???
-- Franklin Journier (ready4y2k@yahoo.com), January 15, 1999.
I guess what I meant to say Hardliner is that if every body who printed articles in this country had to apologize for them the papers would be filled up with sorry sorry sorry sorry etc.I won't apologize for my post. And I am not a Troll
-- adam (verylastpost@TB2000.com), January 15, 1999.
A gentle reminder -The programs and networked infrastructure will fail outright, or struggle to just barely recover, or just get by with only minor irritations, or survive with no problem - regardless of what he (or Mr K., or anybody else for that matter) thinks or wants to happen.
However - the dear Mr. Adam has not shown me any reason why I should change my mind. That is, he has not shown any functional reason to justify his original statement = "we are going off the deep end on Y2K issues" and "the federal governemtn is right to minimize warnings and preparations to avoid causing panic."
Now, just when does he want the panic to start?
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), January 15, 1999.
Forgive me if I duck the Adam quibbles and use this thread to address a point of netiquette, something that has troubled me since I first arrived online.If I verbally repeat to you what someone has said to me, without a request for confidentiality, is that unethical? If you question it and I produce a private letter proving that "something" was said by a particular individual, is that an unethical violation of confidence?
Email seems to me a combination of spoken and written form. Like a written document, the exact phraseology and grammar, including spelling, typos, punctuation, is preserved. Like speach, it can be taken out of context, misquoted, and "creatively edited." Like written form it carries enhanced credibility. But, like speach, it can be wholly fabricated. Is Email more or less sacrocanct than other communication?
In this regard, are ethical considerations online any different than in the "real world?" In what ways? And what are they, anyway?
I know this is off-topic, as is this entire thread. So it may be a good opportunity for those of us who are interested to discuss it. You are definitely the group of individuals that I would enjoy and benefit from having such a discussion with.
Hallyx
(who has learned not to feed the trolls and who does not suffer snerts gladly)
-- Hallyx (Hallyx@aol.com), January 15, 1999.
Two forums in the last 2 days involving the TROLL (yes Adam, you are most definitly a troll), with nothing accomplished, except wasted time. Come on folks, you're veterans, why is this nut case getting under your skin?
-- Mike (Boxman9186@aol.com), January 15, 1999.
Gladly ducking thread-topic, I too am netiquette confused and curious, and just want to say here I love Hallyx's poetic posts.Can one only eMail another by specific invitation? Posting one's real eMail addy means anyone polite can feel free to communicate? What about real street addresses from the phone book? Is it OK to snail mail anyone a note? What about phone numbers: is it OK to call? Why do some ppl feel intruded upon by getting an eMail? How is that a worse intrusion than any other form of communication? How is the computer Mail application more sacrosanct?
Ashton & Leska in Cascadia, hermits new to communication in any form
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 15, 1999.
My two quid's worth.I still say I haven't had such a good laugh since yesterday. Thanks Adam, Lefty et al.
My comment about Darwin still stands, sorry Adam.
Diane - don't let SOB get to you. SOB is usually on the money - not this time - you simply did us all a favour - Adam being an admitted scumbag (troll if you wish) does not get the normal niceties reserved for normal folks, sorry SOB.
Lefty - the more you write the more I understand how misguided you are. What you basically seem to be saying is because my company and my little world is rosy - by default everything else will be hunky- dory too. Good take Lefty - I'm impressed at your perspicacity. No pulling a fast one over you is there! Luvthebeach indeed - that's where your head is at isn't it - don't want to *consider* the possibility of anything that would upset your little world of make believe - too stressful eh? Yes, I have you pegged me old son.
Andy
"The conveniences and comforts of humanity in general will be linked up by one mechanism, which will produce comforts and conveniences beyond human imagination. But the smallest mistake will bring the whole mechanism to a certain collapse. In this way the end of the world will be brought about."
Pir-o-Murshid Inayat Khan, 1922 (Sufi Prophet)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), January 15, 1999.
This is starting to remind me of the GN is a big fat idiot forum. Please don't let it degenerate into something like that. I have enjoyed the intellegence, open mindedness, cooperation, dignity and politeness I have found here. I will be so bummed if this thing gets ugly. I hope you can all work this out and get back to a level of communication.
-- Lisa (logold@kdsi.net), January 15, 1999.
arrrghh! SHADDAP EVERYBODY!!!S.O.B., you should humble up for 5 minutes and think of what you're doing. Diane has done NOTHING warranting mistrust. She's exposed a fake. I give her +3 points on integrity AND trust game. Nettiquette has no place in this context. If the president sent me a private e-mail exposing himself as a fake, I would BROADCAST IT. Adams wasn't e-mailing her about his girlfriend troubles, we're discussing Y2K with him for crying out loud! Honor is not to be mistaken with rigidness.
Makes me sick to think that Diane's integrity, credibility, and huge helpfulness to this forum is brought in question here because of a fake like Adams!
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 15, 1999.
Oh yeah well Diane's integrity and credibility should be a benchmark for everyone! Oh yes indeedy do please!! As far as I can tell Diane is just as much at fault as anyone on this page and she sure doesn't deserve credit for "exposing a fake" as you put it. Whats fake about voicing own's own opinions?...people do it here EVERY SINGLE DAY and don't ge labeled a fake.Chris... take your post and shove it.
-- President for the Remediation of Remedial Readers (Y2K Compliant@AirForce1.com), January 15, 1999.
Regarding "Netiquette"My responses are in brackets.
Ms. Hallyx;
>>>Forgive me if I duck the Adam quibbles and use this thread to address a point of netiquette, something that has troubled me since I first arrived online. If I verbally repeat to you what someone has said to me, without a request for confidentiality, is that unethical? If you question it and I produce a private letter proving that "something" was said by a particular individual, is that an unethical violation of confidence? <<<
[No, I do not believe that your repeating (verbally) what someone else said is unethical. We call it conversation, gossip, rumors, shop talk, B.S. etc. This is common usage. In this I am assuming that your reference to confidentiality is on the part of the original source and not of the person/body that you are speaking to.]
[However, if you produce a private letter then, yes, I believe that you have crossed the fine line of decorum unless you have that persons PRIOR permission to do so. A private letter, (OR an E-mail, which is, in this instance, simply an electronic version of the paper letter), is exactly that. IT IS PRIVATE. Or, perhaps even as personal as is your diary.]
[To post the letter (E-mail) into a public forum without the originators permission is wrong. It is inexcusable under any circumstance, and there can be no justifications, or qualifications, to it. It is an absolute betrayal of that persons trust and is just plain bad manners irrespective of the reasons for which it is done.]
[This holds true regardless of whether it is the "Princess of Sweetness and Light" or "Jerry the Dumbass Troll"]
[Posting a private E-mail without permission shows an utter and complete disregard for, and an abject lack of respect for, the feelings of, the originator of the message, and that thereby shows the lack of any moral standards by the poster. This in turn then calls to question the integrity of that person.]
[Surely you are all aware of the fact that there must be a private (privileged) method of communication between peoples on this internet. Whether such E-mail is solicited or not is not germane to the issue.]
[Just the knowledge that what you say in an E-mail may be wantonly and arbitrarily published on a BBS to try to improve ones position or standing, or to score points would doom the E-mail system if it were to become a widespread or common practice.]
[This is especially deceitful as pertains to the parsing or snippets of the E-mail taken out of context and used in a totally different meaning and manner. This would be by far the most odious of actions.]
[All it really does is greatly diminish the good standing of the poster and lays bare the facade of honor behind which they once hid.]
[And, furthermore, I do not believe that it should make any difference if the same information is already available on the net as is contained in the E-mail.]
[It is the sanctity of the body of the E-mail system itself which must be preserved. And the respect for the originator of the E-mail message.]
[Hopefully this will be the last time that it is done on this forum.]
[It is completely and always WRONG. Lets all try to remember the meaning of the words Honor, Integrity, or, how about, Respect, Trust?]
[This is NOT meant to include, nor is it meant to be construed as prohibiting, the use of so called Public Documents which are exactly that. Public.]
>>Email seems to me a combination of spoken and written form. Like a written document, the exact phraseology and grammar, including spelling, typos, punctuation, is preserved. Like speach, it can be taken out of context, misquoted, and "creatively edited." Like written form it carries enhanced credibility. But, like speach, it can be wholly fabricated. Is Email more or less sacrocanct than other communication?<<
[No, I dont think that E-mail is any more/less sacrosanct. The emphasis here is on the LESS than.]
[But I do believe that an E-mail is more in the nature of the private, or confidential, letter (First class mail?). Whereas the alternative is a public posting to a forum/news group (Bulk rate mail). At least this is my understanding of the issue.]
[If some message is sent to you by E-mail it is intended for you (or your family) alone, usually.]
[If you do not have the originators permission to use it in a public manner then you should keep it private. If it were the originators desire to have such messages posted he/she would post it themselves.]
[A speech by its definition is an open or public undertaking. If it is conducted as a part and parcel of a closed meeting, then yes, it too becomes private or "privileged" communications. Then you should obtain the permission of the owner before publishing any part of it.]
[This may, or may not, include the fair use rules of conduct of quoting for journalistic purposes. Such exceptions are defined beforehand as a rule, and as such are construed as prior permission, or are denied as the case may be.]
[Your point is well taken as regards the manner of the beast of E- mail. It does indeed capture most of our language quirks and forms, save one very important one.]
[I cant see you. I cant listen to the tonal inflections of your voice, the emphasis that is placed on which point. I cant look into your eyes.
That may well be a distinct drawback to it. Or, probably, a very definite advantage to it.]
[Your call].
[The same is true of course of the written letter, hence the high value that is placed on verbal communication in a face to face setting.]
[Another odd point. E-mail ownership? If I write an E-mail to you do you own it? Do I own it? How about the sysops, do they own it too? The ELint folks who monitor the communications?]
[You can argue/discuss this until h*ll freezes over and not reach a satisfactory answer to it. Common sense, common decency, even that dreaded word logic, all of these must enter into these matters.]
[A general thought ruling - the ownership rights are retained unto the originator. Not a copyright, not a trademark, just ownership rights.]
>In this regard, are ethical considerations online any different than in the "real world?" In what ways? And what are they, anyway?<
[No. I think that both Cyber/real worlds should have the same ethics.]
[Why should I be treated any different there than I am here? I try to conduct my affairs in these ways, and I have found that, for the most part, they stand in good stead universally. Perhaps I am indeed an old fashioned and obsolete relic which should be consigned to the scrap yard. Do unto others?]
[I guess I really dont fit into todays world.]
[What is a snert? I'm a net newbie myself and I am also rather dense at times.]
As an aside Maam, I thank you for your habit of posting a quote after your messages. You make the world a little brighter with them. Do you really have a 6 gigabyte stash of them as was suggested on another thread? If so PLEASE share the site with us. If not, well, please continue the practice of leaving us with a quote after your posts. Please post often, even if you and I don't agree on some things. Your unique habit is a first class act, and I for one look forward to them.
Ashton & Leska in Cascadia;
>>>Can one only eMail another by specific invitation? <<<
[No. You can send an E-mail to anyone at any time that you desire. They can reply to, ignore, and/or delete your letter as they wish. Most people will post a false, or dead end address if they don't want to be bothered by unsolicited E-mails.
The really visious one's are those who post using someone else's E- mail address. That isn't cute or funny. It's just plain out sick.
Another offfensive abuse of the E-mail type system, in a way, is the posting of a question to a forum using a fictious addy and then not deleting the alert (reply by E-mail) box. This causes an error return to anyone who posts an answer to that question. This in turn causes the servers to slow down, and can even backlog the site for a time. Careless and thoughtless people do exist.]
>>Posting one's real eMail addy means anyone polite can feel free to communicate?<<
[Yes, it means that you can E-mail at will, however it doesnt require that you be nice. There are several gross and nasty E-mails sent every day. Every news reader does however have a delete function on it. So, just delete the offensive ones.]
> What about real street addresses from the phone book? Is it OK to snail mail anyone a note? What about phone numbers: is it OK to call?<
[There is absolutely no reason that you cant use the information contained in the data bases to mail/phone anyone. You do however come up against common decency and common sense. You have to ask yourself how you would feel if it were you who was receiving the letter/ phone call. Would you be upset or angry? Would you be offended by it? If the answer is yes then don't do it. Most people tend to agree with these "rules of conduct".]
>Why do some ppl feel intruded upon by getting an eMail? <
[Who knows? People are just being people. Some dont like such things. Some couldnt care less. Some actually enjoy getting E-mail.]
[I only remember to check mine about twice a week or so. Some folks have an E-mail alert so that they are immediately advised of the arrivals. By the way, my real E-mail address is posted here. I doubt that anyone, anywhere, can send an E-mail that I can't delete.]
>How is that a worse intrusion than any other form of communication?<
[It isnt. It is a very handy way to post a note (letter, book) to a person. Some people just feel that they dont want to be bothered by anyone ever.]
>How is the computer Mail application more sacrosanct?<
[It isnt. By its very nature it cant be. The Mail system is more of the registered letter type of computer mail. I would use such mail as an encrypted system for secure communications rather than using the other forms of mailings. Even so it is subject to abuse, and to misuse.]
[However, it is basically no different than E-mail. You just have to realize that everything that you enter onto this magic highway of cyberspace can be misused, copied, stolen, filed in a zillion different databases or lost.]
[There is no absolute chiseled in stone set of rules.]
O.K. folks, this is my take on the subject. You may now fire away as you wish. I have flame retardant undies and I can also delete you at will should I choose to do so.
To those who agreed with Ms. Diane in this matter: I consider you as being wrong on this one. I usually agree with you people on most things, especially Hardliner. However, I feel that he is wrong on this one.
My opinion, which, after all, is the only one that really counts.
I freely admit that I am a net newbie, an old crusty, set in my ways type dude, and I can just about bet that you won't change my mind on this subject. I can also be an absolute total SOB to the degree that you can't even imagine in your most fevered nightmare.
Mostly I'm just...
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 16, 1999.
Well S.O.B.,Im quite sure Bill Gates would agree with you.
However I DO NOT suffer exposed trolls lightly. Especially ones just niggling to cause a heated private response.
One last time then Im done with this, Mr. Manners. When someone posting has just been exposed as saying, in a publicly accessable AOL place:
Hobbies: Ruining the lives of happy , modern man. And basically reaking havok on everything
Computers: I'll use them all for my own wicked scheme to end the world
Occupation: Mainframe Virus and part time PC Glitch
Personal Quote: This is the latest up to date comments/news site: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Time Bomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29
(Which he so graciously deleted after being busted.)
This is not a cyber-person with honorable intentions, S.O.B.
Its especially annoying when someone, one respects, has just privately shared additional private attempts by said snert, at causing further dissention. THEN afterwards, I receive and e-mail from the same self-professed snert telling me to:
Stop analyzing the situation so much and don't take Red Cross's warnings to mean that all this stuff people talk about is going to happen. ...
This, after I have spent hours and hours of research time on the American Red Cross, FEMA, the Presidents Council on Year 2000 Conversion, the President, the U.S. Senate, the United Nations, the DoD, the National Guard, the corporate and small business community, the global economic community, etc. then posted SOME of my findings, for the good of all.
Well gee, S.O.B. I get pretty TICKED off. And Ill respond. Openly, not by playing the same trolls covet operations games.
FYI, I will also cite a precedence set by PNG, who I believe you may admire. See his response to privately being called a Scare Monger...
http:// www2.gol.com/users/png/scare_mongering.htmlSo, S.O.B., although I often admire your contributions, IMHO, on this issue ... you are just plain wrong! You sweet guy you.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 16, 1999.
Ms. Diane;>>So, S.O.B., although I often admire your contributions, IMHO, on this issue ... you are just plain wrong! You sweet guy you.<<
I often admired your contributions too Ma'am. And, I presume that you will continue them. I for one will however place less credence in your posts. That's my choice. More verify than trust as it were.
However, you were wrong to have posted that E-mail. If you are offended by, or upset with any one who E-mails to you Please use the delete function of your reader rather than airing your laundry in public. That was most unbecoming of you. It is my opinion that you are wrong, so we're even up. Let's just drop it.
I too receive such mail. That is called life.
PLEASE do not post your private E-mails.
Like you, this is my final response to your subject matter.
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 16, 1999.
S.O.B.,It's not me that you're disagreeing with, nor even all the folks on the forum that agreed with Diane, but our entire culture. And, in reality, not even that. Let me explain.
To begin with, I speak for only myself when I say that I agree with your views on privacy both in general and specifically in regard to EMail. I suspect that most others on the forum do as well. But I submit for your consideration the issue of exceptions.
Western Civilization is permeated with the concept of reciprocity--tit for tat if you like. Authority and Responsibility as two sides of the same coin. Civil liberties and rights in return for obediance to the law. Without the authority to assure there is no responsibility to prevent. If you break the law, you forfeit your civil rights. These are general principles, but each has its exceptions. I won't insult your intelligence by citing the exceptions because I am sure you understand.
Our society also is rife with privileges such as confidentiality between you and your doctor, attorney or priest yet each of these also is subject to exception. Again I'm sure that you know the particulars.
The point of all this is that we are really trying to deal (on this forum re "Adam's" private EMail to Diane) with a special case as opposed to the general case. Your views represent an excellent and thorough discussion of the social mores extant in our society on privacy. What they do not address is the issue of exceptions.
To put this in a little tighter context, we are not arguing about a matter of law, but one of convention. I know of no laws that forbid the revelation of one's private mail, either "normal" written mail or the electronic variety. In many respects though, convention defines our society more accurately than law so it is certainly a matter of import.
I will go out on a limb here (but considering what you've revealed of your character, not much of one) and say that I'm sure you would agree that if a private communication contained notice that someone was going to "burn down so-and-so's-church-on next Sunday" or that someone was going to "shoot the mayor next tuesday night" the receipient would not only have a "right" to reveal the contents publicly, but a "duty" (even if only a moral duty) as well.
Assuming that you do agree, it is apparent that exceptions should exist to the general rules that you've so ably set out.
The question now becomes, what should those exceptions be?
At first glance, it might seem that the "rights" of a self-confessed "troll" on a single internet forum are insignificant in the greater scheme of things, but I submit that it is actually a question of how we (participants in this forum) define ourselves and what we hold to be fair and equitable.
I offer my words and effort as evidence of the value I place on this concept.
I submit and propose that the following be accepted by this forum as our "official" definition of a "troll":
"One who submits an electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or who commits the act of sending such a message." (thanks, to Leska)
I further submit and propose that any "troll" that visits this forum shall forfeit any and all rights to such courtesies and conventions as are normally accorded visitors and/or posters who are not trolls.
S.O.B., I value your opinions and standards, as is apparent that many here do. I sincerely hope that you can find the "Appendix" to your "Rules of Privacy" that allows for this and that we can all agree on this point about those who affront and, more to the point, deceive us, as well as on the main body of conduct that, once again, you have stated so well.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 16, 1999.
Hardliner;>>I submit and propose that the following be accepted by this forum as our "official" definition of a "troll":
"One who submits an electronic mail message, Usenet posting or other (electronic) communication which is intentionally incorrect, but not overtly controversial (compare flame bait), or who commits the act of sending such a message." (thanks, to Leska)
I further submit and propose that any "troll" that visits this forum shall forfeit any and all rights to such courtesies and conventions as are normally accorded visitors and/or posters who are not trolls.<<
Sir;
I agree with your definitions and distinctions. And I will agree with these exceptions and use them in my conduct here. You have made some very good points. I do however want to stress the "Intentionally Incorrect"" aspect of the rules.
Allowing for the exclusion of trolls is perfectly acceptable to anyone I should think, and I agree that there should be a "continuous open season" on them.
However, lets be sure that we don't have "friendly fire" or "frontier rules". As you and I know only too well, responsibility and authority are inseparable.
To The Forum:
The "rules" as I posted them are simply my understanding of the normal conduct of "Netizens" on any fora. I am a newbie to the net and I don't have a clue as to proper conduct in regards to this thing. I do however have my standards of conduct which I use to conduct my own affairs. You have been treated to a few of them.
There are no "Laws" here. We amongst ourselves must police the conduct of those who visit here. If I violate some "unwritten" rule please let me know, in public here in the forum, or via E-mail, as you choose. I still can learn too.
Ms Diane:
Since I have agreed to the above conditions, and in the interests of fairness, I will unilaterally make them retroactive to the original post that you made on this thread.
Therefore:
I apologize to you for my stated objections to your posting of this E- mail from Adam.
Further, I do hope that you will continue your heretofor outstanding job of "Information Navigator". In this you are indeed "amazable"
Peace.
S.O.B.
-- sweetolebob (La) (buffgun@hotmail.com), January 16, 1999.
:`) snif...the last 2 posts were so beautiful...in 8 years of being on the net I don't remember anything so right..so..amazable!Leo must be right after all, I bet a Yourdon Land would work great ;-)
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 16, 1999.
WELL! I'm glad that's over. Ice cream and cookies now being served.I have to note, though, that "Private" material often enters the public domain when necessary and sufficient cause is shown. E.g., Ted Kacynski's (sp.?) diaries. I hold with Diane that in this case necessary and sufficient cause came into existence when the e-mail was sent directly to Diane-- in the context of this discussion (see the previous thread.)
It's a fine line to walk, though. I think I'd prefer to ask permission, myself. ================ Thanks --
-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), January 17, 1999.
Chris,Pass the hanky, I feel a few tears trickling too.
I feel like weve witnessed the online version of a JAG Judge Advocate General episode, within our Yourdonites community.
Hey guys, both sides of the honor equation come out smelling like roses! This is what a win-win situation looks like! Thanks for the examples set. And, thank you S.O.B. and Hardliner for both walking tall.
I accept your apology S.O.B. and in turn offer mine for originally offending your fine sense of what is right and wrong.
Please understand, that I have a hot button where trolls are concerned, even the subtle ones like Adam -- for quite obvious reasons. I dont like that kind of deception at all, and will choose to expose it, if it comes my way. (Future trolls be warned) Must be the teacher in me, and feeling a tad overprotective towards the newcomers.
I also agree to honor private communications, and will ask permission, to post in the future, if it so warrants. I also recognize there are ALWAYS exceptions in any world. That is why being raised with personal values and discernment capabilities are so key to future generations.
Please do pass the ice cream -- love a good jamoca almond fudge! I offer up caffe lattes in return, on this blustery, rainy California Sunday morning.
Peace and Namaste,
Love, Light and Luminescence to all.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 17, 1999.