note to the administrator : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

What happened to this post?


Granted it didn't sound pleasnt, but just pulling it without an explination will freak the more paranoid among us. Could you explain, please?

Annie O'Dea

-- Annie O'Dea (, January 28, 1999


yeah explain yourselves ya freaking imperialistic BASTARDS!

-- (, January 28, 1999.

I tend to agree. This person is obviously very afraid of Y2k, and is expressing that fear - albeit in a childish and abusive manner. I don't think any of us are impressed with his phoney racism, and while marginally disruptive, his sentiments are representative of a large segment of the media-cartel-indoctrinated public. We ought to take heed, because when people laugh and look at us sideways when we bring up the topic of Y2k, this is the same breed of nasty little hamster that's turning the little wheel in the back of their caged minds.


-- E. Coli (, January 28, 1999.

What's there to explain? The obnoxious little troll got kicked out of the pool. Good. Thank you, whoever did it, & please continue.

-- glad (that@hes.gone), January 28, 1999.

Actually, the usual rules of using a bulletin board would facilitate the removal of the post that is in question.

On a secondary note, opposing viewpoints can be made without being outrageously inflamatory, racist, bigoted, and vulgar. We have interested young people looking up to these dialogues that do not need to be senselessly exposed to irrelevant, inappropriate drivel.

Although I am not an advocate of censorship, that particular post was not a discussion. All responses reflected that the person in question is not going to post anything but vulgar, highly offensive abuse. He/she stated so themselves. Therefore, so as not to detract from our discussions, I can see why the moderator (if there is one) or administration chose to remove it.

-- Mr. Kennedy (, January 28, 1999.

What a bunch of fucking Bullshit

Whatever happened to taking your bllody nose and your hurt feelings and going home if you don't like the content of this forum.

Obviously whats good for the goose isn't good for the gander.

Fucking hypocrites all of you. Your no better then the people you blame for the hypothetical Y2k bug.

-- (, January 28, 1999.

When it's not constructive to the dialogue in combination with being inflamatory, racist, vulgar, offensive, etc, I say "Yank 'em at your discretion." In fact there's a couple of other posts today that might fall into the yank category.

-- Other Lisa (, January 28, 1999.

Dear "outer limits" and "anon@mouse" (and other concerned citizens),

Let's examine for a moment, the idea of censorship. Here's Webster -

"Censorship n 1 a: the institution, system or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors; esp : censorial control exercised repressively"

Now, let's go to the About page for this forum:

"This forum is intended for people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people. It's not intended to provide advice/guidance for solving Y2000 problems within an IT organization."

So, this discussion forum is a privately sponsored forum, right? Ed wrote a book and created a website to promote his book and ideas, and got Phil Greenspun at MIT to host the discussion forum section of the website. Right?

Now, follow me for another moment, if you will; there's all kinds of stuff on this forum that has NOTHING to do with "people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people." Right? Ya with me so far?

Occasionally, someone like posts a message that is so OUTSIDE the parameters of this discussion, and SO VULGAR (and I think I can safely say that this is true by any standard) that its presence here is beyond questionable.

Now, Mr.Yourdon has stated emphatically that he does NOT want to remove offensive posts, (and this writer thinks that is a good policy), no matter how outside the parameters of the intended discussion that post is. But, there's been a lot of traffic here lately, a lot of newbies and lot of irrelevancies. So, being a privately sponsored forum, the administrators can do whatever they want to facilitate the discussion.

I think the key in that definition of censorship was the idea of "censorial control exercised repressively." Now tell me, do you see that as being the case here by removing the post in question? Does removing that post make the administrator an imperialistic bastard? C'mon now, get real. There have so few posts removed from this forum, considering the amount of irrelevancies, it's amazing.

There are people who come here who are more sensitive than others. The sponsors want to reach those people as well as we more hardy types. What's the harm in removing a post like the billysucks post, if it may help to facilitate discussion among "people who are concerned about the impact of the Y2000 problem on their personal lives, and who want to discuss various fallback contingency plans with other like-minded people?" If it offends you so much that this questionable post was removed, maybe you're not really interested in this issue, and should go somewhere else.

I find it especially ironic that people who are concerned about censorship hide behind fake names and bogus e-mail addresses. If you REALLY want things to be the way YOU want them to be, maybe you should put your own asses on the line...

-- pshannon (, January 28, 1999.

Other Lisa: I tend to agree with you. There are such things as right and wrong, there are social norms that have their basis in reasonable and correct behavior. (and don't give me spam about who decides what's reasonable and correct. If you don't know it when you see it, there's nothing I can do to help you.) Just because someone wants to spew racist, hate-mongering junk doesn't mean the people who host or frequent this forum have to put up with it. If some jerk is spouting loud and large obscenities in my favorite restaurant, I don't choose to get up and leave. I ask/tell him to leave. We must not ever let the vandals win. It's not censorship. It's good taste and, yes, decency. If those words make you uncomfortable, get over it. I'm not sorry I said them.

-- Cash (, January 28, 1999.

Hypothetical? While I was reading this thread a couple of minutes ago, my local ABC affiliate (again) mentioned the American Red Cross recommendations to have extra water, food and clothing on hand for 2000.

This was on the local evening news. The other day, the same affiliate mentioned the Red Cross suggestions on their entertainment/news magazine that follows Peter Jennings.

-- Kevin (, January 28, 1999.

Along the same lines as Kevin, turnin' the BillySucks thread into something constructive here:) To any who aren't sure what this Y2K thing is all about, do your homework, read this forum and the other's that are out there and contact the agencies and companies that your well-being depends on. I recommend you make phone calls as letters tend to end up unanswered or answered with public relations response that is empty and vague. Nothing like having a state official tell you personally of his plans to buy a generator to make you think twice. Don't take our word for it, find out for yourself. And if you hear some good news, by all means, come share with us.

-- Other Lisa (, January 28, 1999.

Is Y2K a real issue? See these links...

American Red Cross:

Federal Emergency Management Agency:

National Guard:

-- Kevin (, January 28, 1999.

Every unmoderated BBS or List experiences these irrelevant posts. Anyone following a BBS or List will have to get used to it, sooner or later. The appropriate response is no response, but invariably someone's chain gets pulled and they respond, not realizing that this only encourages the originator.

Just say nothing. Regardless.

-- Tom Carey (, January 28, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ