I don't know about anyone else, but I feel just awful. I completely understand Ed's position but I will greatly miss "lurking" and occassionally adding some helpful information on this site. The information and "spirited" debates have been great (well most of the time). There are those of us who GI and still have a lot of preparation to do, and this site has been invaluable for that. Even though I agree with everything that Ed said in his goodbye statement, I also believe that we can continue to help each other as we enter this "downhill slide" phase (as Taz put it). I think we need each other more than ever now. Where do we go from here?

-- (allsweet@rocketmail.com), May 29, 1999

Answers

That depends on whether or not this resource will still be available. If so, I'm hoping that people will still post here.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), May 29, 1999.

I am interested in continuing the best of what was exchanged here. I have an abandoned project that was left undone at www.y2k.am. I guess I will have to work on it. It might take a week or so to get it to some level of decency. But I do hope that this forum will keep on keeping-- even though the frint door seems to be sealed forever now.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 29, 1999.

If Ed Yourdon decides to remove this Y2K message board, as he will regarding the other Y2K links, then I anticipate a mass migration of Y2K GI's to other sites. I think this is the best Y2K forum. What other Y2K sites do you suggest?

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), May 29, 1999.

Simple...lets just move to the debunkers forum. that way we are right there for them to shoot at us. Taz

-- Taz (Tassie @aol.com), May 29, 1999.

(re-posted from the "Hang around..." thread:) [Question about having a closed forum.] I suggest:

TWO forums. One open forum, just as this one. The other (a closed, mirror site) takes those threads and posts them again, but edited down by 80% to the best information, discourse, humor contained in the original.

Flint, and any sincere "polly". You challenge us, contribute intelligently, seriously, with good intent. Most of us would agree you carry the dialogue well. Editor cuts you because of your *opinion*, editor gets incredible guff from us all.

Everything is visible in the original on the full thread, and we can judge for ourselves how well content comes through to the edited thread. Eventually, we have to come to trust the editor(s) to give us the essentials. Or we audition new editor(s). (One Category would be challenges to the editor's judgment in cutting.)

I'd also like to see a library of WAAQs (well asked & answered questions) that new thread questions can be referred to as part of re- opening a discussion based on news, events, or the arrival of new people with a valuable perspective to contribute.

We also have fun, and some of the amazing times of goofy, zany humor could be carried over. We would still do our wild dancing acts over on the OPEN forum, but we could read for content (and catching up) on the condensed one. ("Yourdon's Digest"?)

Yes, we would lose immediacy on the edited one, but we indulge in that plenty already, and many thoughtful contributions are buried in "spontaneous" outbursts, and digressions away from the topic.

The editor would not inject or impose new content, but would as skillfully as possible weed out the posts that we, as a group, generally do not want to have imposed on our limited reading time.

Argument? Agreement? Improvements? (BTW, I am not volunteering for the job, not for many more months at least. A group effort, maybe splitting up different categories to each?)

-- jor-el (jor-el@krypton.com), May 30, 1999.

allsweet,

I would hope that you had not lost sight of the purpose of this forum, and others like it. Where we go from here is where we should have been going even before this forum was started. It is easy to lose focus on the road in order to concentrate on the horses, but it's also dangerous.

Ed's departure from public y2k related activities was inevitible...it had to happen sooner or later, as it happened to DeJager, and will likely happen to other public y2k figures. I would not be the least surprised.

Ed's decision to retire now is an act from which we can all benefit. We all have time to adjust to a "loss," and continue on without his tutelege. The question is, are you up to it, or have you become so dependent on his presence, real or imagined, that you cannot continue without him? If the former, then his efforts have not been wasted. If the latter, then you still have a little time left to learn how to persevere in the face of loss. That's what survivors do.

By this time I, and I suspect Ed, would expect you to have worked out some kind of plan for yourself, no matter how crude, and are working to the best of your ability to follow that plan. If not, now is the time to do so. You have a wealth of archived information at your fingertips, thanks to all those that offered it, he who encouraged them to offer it, and he who made it accessable to you. It's there. Use it.

The road upon which we have embarked has not yet ended. If you want to get to the end of the road, now is not the time to fall by the wayside. You'd be surprised how easy it is to keep your chin up and your nose to the grindstone at the same time. All it takes is practice, and the will to keep at it.

-- LP (soldog@hotmail.com), May 30, 1999.

If you need a place to meet and continue this forum or simply to announce any new continuity forum announce it on our Y2K forum .

http://www.uneco.org then click on the Y2K icon and place messages on the Hawaii Y2K FORUM

Hawaii will be the last to enter the millennium.

Ed Yourdon was our guest and he had announced his intention to say good bye in April.

It is important that this forum survive. I would hope Ed will leave the forum on the net or pass the reins for it to someone else willing to take up the task.

Aloha

Aldo

PS. By the way take a look at our island it offers possibly one of the best places of refuge

If you want more info drop us a line.

-- Aldo (Y2K@uneco.org), May 31, 1999.