Y2K Pro - Mutha - BigBadTrolls - How about a truce?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

We're wasting everybody's time here, trying to find a nastier-than-your's name to call each other. What do you say to a truce? Live and let live. Keep posting your optimistic views, and I'll keep posting my pessimistic view. What about it, for the good of the forum? <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999


Oh goody,we have a new game playing!!

Truth,Bluff or Double Bluff.

Whatever,Sysman go,go ,go!

-- Person in a silly mood (griffen@globalnet.co.uk), March 31, 1999.

Absolutely! As I've said earlier, I've corresponded privately with a couple of folks who took "grave exception" to some of the positions taken here. Without exception, they have been decent, technically oriented professionals who simply happened to disagree with my world view. Not a problem.

In fact, I got a nice email about optimism from "Jimmie Bagga Donuts" a few days ago. Again, I didn't agree with him, but he certainly didn't do me any harm.

There is enough tension concerning this issue. Why must we polarize each other needlessly?

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), March 31, 1999.

Is this a prelude to All Fool's Day?

-- that'll happen (d@rea.mon), March 31, 1999.

Why a truce? Just ignore them. Take a deep breath and don't hit that submit button. Lately, I've committed a whole bunch of unsent, snappy comebacks to the vapor bin, and my ego is none the worse for it. In fact, it feels good.

It's not so much a question of optimistic vs. pessimistic. There are serious statements on both sides. However, I do think that most people who simply regard Y2K as a non-issue aren't gonna hang around here for very long. Then there are those who regard their life's mission as cult-deprogrammers. Well, I suppose they have a certain narrowly-focused point to make, but when the HTML wars and the name-calling starts, it can only go downhill from there, so why not just slip out the back door?

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 31, 1999.

WHAT are you thinking, Sysman??? I pay no attention to these trolls, a habit which you can't seem to cultivate. Speaking of cultivating, aren't you the one who kept egging on several of the more prominent trolls a month or so back? Hmmm? Since you seem to be so enamored of verbal combat with these fools, why not take it on over to the DGI forum, and simply cease engaging them here?

-- sparks (wireless@home.com), March 31, 1999.

Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty and the pig will love it.

-- (macdonald@farm.dot), March 31, 1999.

Debbie and sparks - What would this forum be if everyone had the same opinion? I see nothing wrong with trading views with someone that I don't agree with. We can all learn from such an exchange. I have found some of the most educational threads here being Mr. Cook debating with another P.E. for example. What I am saying is that we are getting too carried away with the name-calling and nya-nya-nya-nya-nya-nya stuff, and that I'm also guilty of it, and I think we should end it. This place would be pretty boring if all we did was pat each other on the back, and say no, yore right, no your right, no you are righter, and no he is most right. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

Sysman, you are responsible for about 1/3 of the meaningless posts here. You really should find other ways to occupy your time. Most of us are very busy and don't have time to read every post. From now on when I see your name on a thread, I will just skip it. It's too bad, because when you first came here, you usually had something interesting to say. Now it seems you are just looking for "playmates."

-- Rose (tired@of.endless chatter), March 31, 1999.

Thanks for being so open minded Rose.

Year 2000 Projects May Be Overlooking Millions...

Even the virtuous may be hit by Y2K

CNET Launches New Y2K.com

ADVISORY/Y2K May Pose Threat of Power Plant...

One Quarter of U.S. Insurers Behind Schedule

Ready or Not: Y2K Issue Will Have Biggest Impact...

These are only NEW threads that I've started, that are on the current page. This doesn't count my answers to Norm's posts. Should I go back a few weeks in the archive for you? Have a nice day. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

By the way Rose, I haven't seen your name too often. What has your contribution to this forum been? Take a look at the statistics page:

y2kboard@yahoo.com (940)

And have an even better day tomorrow. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.


I find this very thread, started by you, on the current page. But it's not in your listing. I think you might have developed your reputation with Rose with the Norm posts, but who am I to say?

You aren't by any means the worst of the mudslingers who occasionally infest this forum. But you might try a little trick that works for me: before I hit the submit button, I ask if I'm making a real contribution to helping people understand, or if I'm just tearing someone else down for fun. And if the latter, I don't submit the post.

Another of my rules of thumb: it's always a mistake to try to discredit a post by attacking the poster. At best, you only get them to change pseudonyms.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 31, 1999.

I agree, Sysman. I always read your posts because you have a lot to say and you say it well. Buried in my message (maybe not expressed clearly) was the idea that there are constructive disagreements and then there are the useless ones that degenerate into name-calling. I thought the name-calling was what you wanted to call a stop to. Lately you've been real caught up in that, so I don't blame you for being sick of it. My point was that a truce isn't needed. For anyone who wants to stop it, stop.

You'll never get agreement to a truce because the request would be just more fodder for their trolling and they don't play by gentlemen's rules. As a former sysop, you must know the scene forwards and backwards! So what's up??

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 31, 1999.

I hear ya Flint. Maybe I'm too outspoken. That's why I started this, I'm finding myself attacking the poster, but falling to their moronic level of name-calling etc. This is a serious issue, and we need real information here. The stuff going on here lately (yea, I'm guilty) is a waste of everybody's time.

Diane told me yesterday, that newbies that do their homework will figure out what is really going on. My problem with that is what if they come here, and see the top three posts from Norm, Y2K Pro, and Mutha? They'll figure this is a bunch on non-sense, a hoax, and a money making scheme. That's why I will not give up finding the other side.

If the optimists here want to tell their side, I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem with is, that as soon as you point out the other side, you get called every name in the book. I'm only trying to convience them that this is not the best way to present their point of view. Or mine. <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

If they stop I will. It was fun for a while.

-- Wiseguy (got@it.gov), March 31, 1999.

Hi Debbie. As a former sysop, I was very successful at ending many wars. I had my finger on the plug. Wish I could do that here!

Thank you Wiseguy.


-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 31, 1999.

One solution is simply to let the other person be wrong -- whatever one's personal definition of wrong happens to be. And get on ith your life.

None of us here have been tasked with correcting the world's errors.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), April 01, 1999.

ThAT is tRUe!!!!! iT iS FOoLisHNEss tHAt muST BE ExpoSEd!!!!! btw, I WaS VErY TouCHED By yoUr porTRAyAL of trUMAn!!!!! YOu aRe a gENIus!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), April 01, 1999.

I think a truce is a great idea- namecalling is juvenile and a waste of time- if you're writing something that you wouldn't bother to take pen and ink to and put a 33 cent stamp on and walk it down to the mailbox- maybe it's not worth writing. Also- if you're writing something behind the cloak of anonymity that you'd be quite embarassed to have lifted- maybe you shouldn't be writing that either.

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), April 01, 1999.

I have been reading this forum since November, but have posted only a few other times. I clearly remember the first post from Sysman, telling of the year 2000 conversion project he is working on. I found it very interesting because I am involved in a similar project. Since then I have followed his posts closely. He has brought some good information to this forum.

Lately the quality of some of his posts and answers has gone down hill. However I believe the quailty of the entire forum has also gone down hill recently. I must applaud his effort to bring an end to the current food fight, and get back to the basic ideas of this forum. Thank you Sysman.

-- Don (dembler@ibm.net), April 01, 1999.

Thanks for your support Jon, Dieter, Anita, Don, and the others that think this is a good idea. I see that BigBadTrolls has agreed in one of his posts. If we can get rid of at least some of the non-sense here, and get back to basics, as you say Don, we'll all be better off.

Don - how's your Y2K conversion going? We're making progress, but not as quickly as we would like. There's still so much to be done. At least we have an understanding customer that is willing to work with us.

Enjoy the holiday weekend everyone! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 01, 1999.

Maybe I underestimated the impact of calling a truce! Never doubted it was a good sentiment....

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), April 01, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ