Current mission statement:

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.

Over the next 6 months, how should the Forum change, or should it change?

-- Forum Moderation Team Member (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), May 31, 1999

Answers

Keep it like it is, trolls and all. They come and they go, if you can't handle a troll you are not going to be able to handle y2k - get real :)

If I want a prep-only or tech-only forum there are plenty of them around, plenty of newsgroups.

This forum is special, as we addicts all know - let's not mess a good thing up.

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 31, 1999.

About the only request/change I'd like implemented is some form of key word search capability. I get mired down in the volume of posts and just don't have the time to wade thru all the information. The story about knowledge being water and this site giving it to you out of a firehose applies here . If you manage to drink a cup you've gotten enough for the day. There is a wealth of information to be had here and I for one am glad I managed to stumble into the place.

nine

-- nine (nine_fingers@hotmail.com), May 31, 1999.

The search engine fix is in the hands of Phil Greenspun.

What we can do is add more specific Categories to the Forum.

Ideas?

-- Forum Moderation Team Member (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), May 31, 1999.

Thanks to those who've taken on the responsibility for moderation of this forum.

Warts & all, this is the place to be! I just as soon leave well enough alone. However, the one area where I would gladly accept changes would be with regards to foul language directed AT someone or a group of someones. Inflammatory personal attacks are counter- productive, unless one's goal is to distract others from discussing the issue at hand.

This is censorship, no doubt. My suggestion is offered with the hopes posters will exercise self-discipline without the moderation team having to act.

I trust the team will rule with a feather touch. :-)

All hail the new Kings & Queens!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 31, 1999.

This Forum is great! A Search Engine & FAQ would be very helpful. A proven-nasty-troll Bounce would be a relief. The troll line tends to be fuzzy tho. Many of us when first posting were regarded as trolls ;^) That initial disbelief, frenzy, freak-out, y'know.

Another thanks to Ed and all thoughtful contributors for the best Forum on the Net. Not TOO many changes TOO fast. W'all gonna be facing changes aplenty burgeoning & bludgeoning real soon ...

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), May 31, 1999.

Yes beloved Cascadians, a FAQ. What do ya think about the following:

BEFORE YOU BUY BEANS AND RICE: Things to think about before you start preparing for Y2K

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 31, 1999.

Bingo, that's an excellent intro thread!

We were thinking, for the FAQ, that a topic be assigned to a particular poster, who would round up related threads, link them, and make a master FAQ thread, such as
Old Git for Gardening.

Andy & Nik for International Potential Disasters Intersecting and Impacting Y2K.

Hardliner for Military Definitions.

LP for Ham Radio.

Ed Yourdon for It's Too Late Code Blues

Flint for the Polly CounterView.

Diane for Camping & Mobile Bug-Outting.

Ashton & Leska for Death.

Anita Evangelista & Chris for Nursing.

Chuck for Emergency First Aide.

TTF for It's Happened Before And Here's How To Get Thru It

Infomagic & Milne for The Worst Debacle You Don't Want To Think About.

etc etc etc. Posters have their "pet" topics and would probably be happy to write the defining category starter thread.

Just floating ideas, brain sorta mushy this morning, spent weekend shopping the economic prep specials, now gotta totally rearrange & sort & categorize & inventory and cram it all somewhere.
Fortunately we also found RubberMaid RoughNeck super sturdy plastic stackable STORAGE CONTAINERS at low low low prices! WheeHeee!

Off to packrat, perpetual Christmas in the Y2K foxhole ;^)

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), May 31, 1999.

if it ain't broke- why fix it??

-- anita (hillsidefarm@drbs.com), May 31, 1999.

A FAQ would be great for the newbies. I've given out this URL to several (dozens...probably over 100) people over the months, and when I ask them what they thought, it's usually :

"they should have a FAQ for those looking for answers to the basics: FOOD, WATER, FINANCES, HEAT, SHELTER, STORAGE."

Most of those who have suggested this have lauded the archives, however. The gyst of it is: "WOW...you could slog for days in there, all sorts of viewpoints/esoterica/nitpicky topics that the average person wouldn't even consider thinking about."

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), May 31, 1999.

Just thought of a monumental job, which we're NOT volunteering for, but which would be most helpful:

If somebody went through the archives AFTER the new Team presents the new specific Categories, and ReCategorizes the threads. Many are in the wrong categories! And without a Search Engine those misplacements drive the researcher batty.

xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), May 31, 1999.

Gawd Leska!

What a chore it would be to try to re-organize these threads w/o a search engine. I'd say leave well enough alone on that end of it. Besides, Brian's done such a great job of re-organizing in the Preparation Archives. Maybe we need a top-level link for that?

I'd sure like to see more specific categories added to the Forum. Like one for "International Y2K."

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 31, 1999.

Now, now, our last post was a little much, but the one about ppl doing a linked FAQ thread on their pet topics, is a good idea! Only thought about organizing archives because was mentally walking thru the process of linking all threads related to our FAQ thread, and seeing how weirdly dispersed those threads are.

Diane, list your ideas for Categories! And let posters pipe up their pet-passion-topics ;^)

Oops, did somebody solicit ideas? This Forum is a thriving marketplace of florid flora concepts :-)

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), May 31, 1999.

we'll only have freedom of speech when ot protects the views of people we despise,let the trolls post,freedom is worth it

-- mike cook (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), May 31, 1999.

agree with mike cook,

this forum is the BEST on the y2k web, let's not screw it up by imposing arbitrary categories and rules and laws and censorship,

we are all adults

we can sort this out ourselves

all we need is a few good and true SYSOPS (forum moderators if you like)people to spike any downright obscene or trollish (and it would have to be BAD) threads

let the forum eveolve, it has done pretty good so far under ed's stewardship,

give it some leeway!

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), May 31, 1999.

My personal vote would be for editing the really profane profanity.

That's the OT part that's "not nice."

Just, MHO.

Leska, a list? I need a laced latte right about now!

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 31, 1999.

Hello new forum moderators. I generally agree with the senitiments above about leaving things mostly "as is". I do have two suggestions:

1) Get rid of the "Questions" at the top of each post and the "Answers" before the first response...it doesn't seem to apply any more.

2) Consider requiring registration with a legitimate e-mail address. This will rid this forum of the vast majority of trolls and foul language. I've seen it work very effectively in other forums, and the majority of folks here already use legitimate e-mail addresses.

Best of luck with the future of this forum.

-- Dan the Power Man (dgman19938@aol.com), May 31, 1999.

I agree with Dan about the email address stuff as a big-time way to nail trolls. For those of you worried about the Feds, I've got news for you: they know who you are or can find out who you are no matter what handle you use.

Spamming is another matter but it is against the law; the moderators can help you if it happens and, most likely, you can use your email program to provide automatic filters if you're hit.

Whether or not to enforce authentic emails is up to the moderator(s) but is worth serious consideration.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 31, 1999.

I am going to take the position a friend of mine has on motorcycle helmets here, he wears one all the time, but is opposed to a helmet law forcing it. I use my real address, but m opposed to forcing it.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 31, 1999.

I say leave it like it is. I get incredibly depressed when the trolls (from both sides) start feeding, but, hey, I still come back eventually (been coming back for almost a year now). For some reason (which eludes me), this forum works rather well and will continue to work even without the respected Mr. Yourdon (although he'll still be lurking out there). Leave the forum and its mission alone.......doomers, pollys, middlers, cranks, and trolls all appear to have a place here and they all at one time or another contribute that one jewel of a thread that makes this forum work.......

-- seagreen (cnlewis@mindspring.com), May 31, 1999.

Why not just change the name of the forium to "Andy's place"? It seems he has nothing better to do than sit here and give his opinion about anything that is said.

-- Cherri (sams@brigadoon.com), May 31, 1999.

Cherri, Cherri.

*Sigh*

Can't we *all* TRY to be nicer?

That could work. Maybe.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), May 31, 1999.

I do not believe in censorship of any kind, whether it be pollys, trolls, swearing, ranting, flaming, arguing, paranoia, happy face, off topic or just plain boring. I owned a bookstore and there is nothing more insidious than censorship. It's a subtle form of mind control. As I've been told often enough on this forum, "If you don't like it, don't read it." Censorship has a gradual, cumulative effect, which ends up cutting out a lot of stuff that may have been interesting. With rules of the "thou shalt not" type, you end up with a bunch of boring people mouthing polite platitudes and posting endless items from periodicals, and position papers and government hacks.

There is never an end once censorship begins. Ed Yourdon had the great good sense to know this and only deleted the worst of the worst. One example which I think illustrates my ;point is the censorship of certain movies in order to calm the sensitivities of certain people. It finally got to the point of being so sensitive that the Association for the Blind wanted the cartoon Mr. McGoo censored, as it was insensitive to blind people, and a faction of the Religious Right wanted Lion King censored for some obscure sexual reason. Just keep this in mind: There is never an end to censorship. If Orwell's l984 and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring had been censored, as certain people tried in vain to do, this world would be much worse off for the loss.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 31, 1999.

Way to go, Gilda!!!!

-- seagreen (seagreen@seagreen.com), May 31, 1999.

I go fishing, and all hell breaks loose. Ummm you all are starting to sound like government people. You probaly won't miss me, but if you start regulating, I'll just have to go elswhere. I heard departmentalize, and censor......yep sounds like the government to me.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), May 31, 1999.

Don't you people realize you've been had??? Ed Yourdon has bailed off the Y2K radar screen because if things don't get bad, he'll be long forgotten by the end of the year. Sheeple have short memories.

Why put all that work into something and then bail out. He's dumb like a fox and took all our money with him. I wonder who the sheeple REALLY are???

Been had big time.

-- Sucka (BeenHad@yourdonsite.com), May 31, 1999.

I ditto the fake email thing. When someone enters a question or reply, it would be a simple matter for the system the check the email address for validity at that time.

Requiring true email addresses is the SINGLE MOST effective thing you can do to civilize a forum.

-- Stephen M. Poole, CET (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), June 01, 1999.

No, anononimity is important to many of us.

But make the default for "Notify Me of Responses" on new posts "NO".

-- a (a@a.a), June 01, 1999.

I like this foreum the way it is, and I hope no much changes.

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), June 01, 1999.

I see this forum as being a fascinating experiment in community and responsibility. It has its problems, but then hey, so does real life. I think it's best when treated as a self-regulating body of individuals. To start changing things in order to implement more control is likely to backfire.

For instance - the idea of making it so that one has to enter a valid e-mail address. OK, this may eliminate a few of the troll posts, but the nastiest of the nasties, the ones who are (apparently) dedicated to coopting the debate in some way, will simply get a hotmail address and keep going. Then, folks who are new to it, or "cautious" will be less likely to post, and the conversation will start to be limited. I personally don't think that's a good thing. The possibility for anonimity has its strengths as well as its weaknesses. I think if by exerting control to eliminate some of the (questionable) weaknesses, some of the strengths will be eliminated as well.

"Censorship" is a slippery slope at best. True, this is a privately operated and moderated forum, and like anything privately owned, the owners have a right to "project originatorship," and can do basically whatever they want as far as limiting the conversation. I don't see anyone screaming that Rick Cowles "censors" his forum because he asks that it be limited to discussion of Electric Utilities. I think that some of the people in the past who've complained about censorship on this forum don't understand what the word means.

However, this forum has evolved into a wide open kinda thing where anyone can say anything about any subject. If things get too off-topic, people comment on that. I think self-moderation is the best form of control here. Trying to "nail trolls" in some official capacity is most likely going to be a waste of energy, participants already voluntarily "nail trolls" through debate. Once the new moderator decides that he/ she is going to "nail trolls," where does that end? Once it is decided that the conversation needs to be eliminated, where does that end? The forum will lose much of its value.

On the about page, the Mission Statement is proably just about perfect.

"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." -- pretty much says it all... If there were someting saying "This forum, orginally is a self-moderating community of individuals..." or something along those lines, that might be cool, but probably unnecessary.

As far as things like changing the default to No for notifying of responses or eliminating Question and Answer at the top, it's like, So What? Interface improvements are always nice, but it's the discussion that's important...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), June 01, 1999.

Ooops --

My comment about the Mission statement SHOULD read:

If there were something saying "This forum, is a self-moderating community of individuals..." or something along those lines, that might be cool, but probably unnecessary...

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), June 01, 1999.

For the 'no censorship folks, a question -

what do you suggest the sysop should do when people fail to maintain standards / fail to moderate themselves?

if standards aren't maintained, then they aren't really standards at all, just nice wishes...

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), June 01, 1999.

Well, Arlin, we've gone through lotsa periods in the past where the standard of civility falls to the wayside. As a result, some people back off from participating. Others don't. It's everybodies' choice, like whether to personally prep or not.

While the original mission statement was "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 evolved to include lots of things that APPEAR to be off-topic to some, (Andy comes to mind) but in the larger scheme, are interconnected. The OT posts often get feedback for being OT from participants. IMHO, it should remain that way and the Sysop should only maintain a standard against off-topic, PROFANE, personal attacks. And, should even be careful about that.

As a participant, I think that one of the worst things that can happen in the ongoing Polly/Doomer debate is this: "Ed split, and now the doomers are in charge of the forum and they have the POWER to remove things they don't agree with! Not only do they irrationally ARGUE and name call against things they disagree with, they actively DELETE them!" The Pollys will have won the debate if this happens, and Y2K will stop being the issue. We need to rise above that and not give them the opportunity to say that.

Whaddya think?

-- pshannon (pshannon@inch.com), June 01, 1999.

My $0.02 on the moderation issue.

First, begging your patience, an example. (by way of illustration)

What I call the "out on a limb" crowd (extremist regular posters, seemingly much respected by all and sundry) had a field day with their recent "heads up"

Typical was this post. .

INCOMING!!!!!! Heads up folks. Facts, the clintons are going on vacation next weekend. The Cox report will be released this week and the senate is screaming for blood. Clintons administration is about to be gutted. Boris Yeltsin is also going on vacation next week. He has just replaced Primakov and most of his cabinet, enough of them to form a second wartime government. Next weekend is Memorial day weekend. Three days. Plenty good cover for your local Trilateralist and CFR members to make themselves scarce from Washington and New York City. The Bildenbergers have just completed their little take over the world session and are conveniently out of pocket. I think there is an excellent chance we may see a major american city, or a bunch of them, go up in mushroom clouds next weekend. Or a major terrorist attack on the Indy 500. Keep your eyes peeled and be ready to run like hell.

-- Nikoli Krushev (doomsday@y2000.com), May 24, 1999.

Well as far as I know, the big wigs had their vacations, World War III did NOT happen this last weekend, and nobody, anywhere, got nuked. In fact, India and Pakistan have proved that starting a nuclear conflict is not just a matter of faceless "shadowy figures" pushing buttons (it also involves mass slaughter of innocent people), and have agreed to urgent peace talks. In Russia, there are a host of new appointments to govermental positions, and generally things are calming down. In the balkan conflict, NATO members continue to ask rational and neccessary questions about their actions, but still state (rightly I believe) that the VAST majority of INTENTIONAL civilian casualties (almost 2 million at present), are as a result of Serb actions, which they (NATO) are trying as best they can (maybe not very well, but its something) to arrest. As to China, not a peep.

And I suspect that this outcome was silently "predicted" by the vast majority of the forum's posters and lurkers.

But the world certainly IS still a risky place, and you can bet that the "build a bunker" crowd will continue to use all and any terror- scenarios to attempt to "convert" moderate people to their cult of conspiracy. Also, I doubt youll be seeing a statement of contrition from Nikoli, or any of the others, apologising for the distress they may have caused this last week by their false and totally overblown assertions.

All of which I think serves to distract this forum from its supposed purpose. (And for those about to flame, before you respond with your outraged cries that the forum is for "like-minded people who take seriously the impact of Y2K on themselves and their families" and to discuss "preparation for the worst" and therefore, by your definition, your rightful domain, note that I DO take Y2K very seriously, I am also a preparer, albeit (in my view) rational (and it comes down to your interpretation of the word "worst" right ?), and therefore have every right both to post, and to air my opinion. The question however was asking for opinions as to how the forum could be improved, and thats what Im attempting to answer. Now you can yell about whatever it is you usually yell about.)

So whats my point ? My point is that the moderate GI's on this forum, along with the moderate DGI's on the various de-bunker forae (myself included), are almost certainly closer in their relative positions than are the extremists on either side.

For the record, I wouldnt associate myself with "ANTI-PREP pollys" any more than I would with the likes of Gary "Lets knock the world down and rebuild it MY way" North. And yet so much of the time, sensible discourse is allowed to deteriorate into playground squabbling, primarily due to the noise-capability of the extremists. I can't be certain, but maybe theres something of this evident in the recent decision from the forum owner to set up some kind of moderator committee.

This makes me wonder who the committee members (and thereby the moderators) are to be. Hypothetically, if this forum could be developed into a well-moderated environment, (or if those moderate persons from either side (who wished to) could reconvene in such a well-moderated environment in order that all may discuss their differences rationally), I think we'd soon discover we dont stand far apart. But that, of course, would depend on who gets to do the moderating. If their brief is to be "silence the trolls" (whatever that really means) then I doubt it will help the forum one bit.

In other words, and in my humble opinion, if the moderators were able to filter out the noise and disruption from the likes of Nikoli, Andy, Hardliner, Y2KPro, and many many others, (not silence them, just keep them on topic and within certain standards of civil discourse), then maybe we would even achieve some kind of *gasp* concensus. I can certainly imagine some healthy debate between Old Git, BigDog, Uncle D, Mr Decker, Cherri, Maria, Stephen Poole, and many other valuable contributors. (Im not conceited enough to suggest that I personally could be of much use, beyond the occasional opinion).

But, maybe I'm alone in thinking thats a goal worth aiming for. I know that I'm sure as hell bored senseless watching people who appear to be kind, educated, sensible, and interesting being drawn inexorably into repetitive, bickering squabbles about conspiracy theories and doom scenarios.

If the more popular goal is that of setting up a forum where lots of very spooked people can sit around agreeing with each other about how good 50 gallon plastic barrels are for storing bleach (or similar), whilst being "informed" of every move of the "NWO" by the above named (and self appointed) conoscenti, then I think youve answered your own questions.

As I said . . just my $0.02

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 01, 1999.

Humm. Good points, pshannon.

The forum seems calmer today. This could be a good thing.

;-D

I know Ed's pulling back has caused me to look at my preps harder... and my too "quiet" community.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 01, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3,

Comments by pshannon referred to this forum as a self-moderating community of individuals and I tend to think thats been the case. (With some NOTABLE exceptions).

Perhaps it behooves us all, to call something OT when it is (minus the flames), and not rely on the Dad or Mom moderators to do it for us. Some would call this encouraging self and group responsibility. (A skill we all need to cultivate, from now on, until, and after January 1st).

Your comment I know that I'm sure as hell bored senseless watching people who appear to be kind, educated, sensible, and interesting being drawn inexorably into repetitive, bickering squabbles about conspiracy theories and doom scenarios, is something we can all relate to.

For the record, I dont like it either. And its up to each of us to choose to self-moderate, the same as we all individually prepare at our on level of awareness. With that said, some of the OT stuff HAS turned out to be Y2K inter-related. Whod thunk it?

I appreciate the differing views, but would prefer the gang wars stop and we call a cease-fire. Can we all disagree with a modicum of civility?

Time will tell.

Just my pennys worth.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 01, 1999.

I dread the day when everyone I meet is like Dolly. They all talk "nice." They all ignore people with whom they disagree. They are all politically, sexually, spiritually and socially correct. They do not joke, preach, argue, comment, opine, swear, rant, or violently disagree. They are above exhibiting these sordid traits of normal human behavior. They are all on the right side, and they are sure that "right" is on their side. They always do the right thing, although others may question their "right thing." They are all perfectly, utterly boring, sheep.

Remember Thomas Bowler, the English editor who published his expurgated version of Shapespeare's works omitting or changing parts which could not "with propriety be read aloud in a family." This holier-than-thou moron tried to ruin one of the best works ever written in the English language.The word bowdlerize has lived on to denote the worst of censorship, in order to make it "nice" for family and especially for "the children."

"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him." John Morley.

Thanks but no thanks--not my cup of tea. I like diversity in nature and in people.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), June 01, 1999.

Diane

I agree in essence with what you say. However, the idea of this forum as a utopian communitiy of self-moderating individuals seems to me to ignore both the forum as it is, and also a major factor in human psychology.

The Y2K issue is a big one. (Even with my personal forecast at between 3.5 and 4.5 I still have a short-term retreat where I will spend the first few weeks of the new millenium. So I'm certainly of the opinion that its a big issue). And as soon as you get a group of people around discussing a BIG issue (try politics, religion, sex, marriage, war, drugs, pornography), it is normal for those with the most extreme views to make the most (and loudest) noise. If they have something truly valid to say, then fair enough. However, all too often other agendas tend to creep in, and, frankly, if the forum as it is now represents the best hope we have for self-moderation, then I'm 100% for external moderation (in moderation *G*).

Society is generally a self-moderating system, with most people choosing to stay within society's accepted limits for the majority of their lives. Despite this, we still have, and need, laws and a police force to cope with those who choose to abuse the freedoms that this kind of system inherantly offers.

While I do not subscribe to the idea of a fascistic "Mom and Pop" checking for us to make sure that only "approved" posts get through, I do believe this forum needs a benevolent and mature "police force" if it is to maximise its potential as a source of information and entertainment. And as I tried to express, I believe that some censorship of extreme and off-topic views, as well as ad-hom attacks and uncivility in general would be a good thing.

Otherwise, in my opinion, this forum will descend further into the realm of "NWO spook-conspiracy central", and the moderates and lurkers will see less and less value in it.

I guess that means Ive had $0.04 !!! (where do I send the cheque ?)

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 01, 1999.

To the extent the new moderators (bless you, whoever you are) are willing to take the time, I would welcome whatever level of reorganization would make it as easy as possible for newbies to do their research. I can't imagine starting out now and coming up to speed.

Rename threads so the content is clear. Combine repetitive postings. Recategorize threads. (None of these efforts would be necessary if posters took responsibility for themselves.) Probably additional categories need to be established. And very explicit directions to newbies. And FAQs. Brian's contributions have been extraordinary in this regard. (Brian, I don't know where you find the time - thank you, thank you!) I would also like the original poster's name to appear in the Recent Answers list as another way to screen whether I want to open a thread.

Fine by me if the vilest of postings are purged (there have been times I have resisted recommending that friends check out this forum), but I can live with the way things are. If memory becomes a problem (has Phil G. said anything about this yet?), then I think that would be a valid reason to limit postings to strictly civil, on-topic matters. I assume that the rate of postings will continue to grow as the year drags on.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 01, 1999.

I very much agree with putting the names of posters alongside "Recent Answers" if Phil G. can do this conveniently.

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), June 01, 1999.

Hi Patrick,

I guess my perception of this is that many of us aren't really here for the debate. We're here to collect and exchange information about preparedness issues. NOT deal with endless polly postings, NOR with conspiracy theories the very existance of which on this board do as much or more damage to our credibility with the mainstream than all of the polly attacks put together.

If, in fact, some people want to debate, fine, let's give them an area to do so, but NOT in the area where those of us who are trying to exchange information and preparedness tips are attempting to converse. Same goes for the conspiracy theorists...

Just my 2 cents' worth,

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), June 01, 1999.

W0lv3r1n3,

To begin with, I must admit that your post astonished me. On both of the two previous occasions that you crossed my path, you convinced me that you were a troglodyte with no redeeming value. If I did not refer to you as such, I certainly thought it.

Your latest effort has caused me to re-evaluate that conclusion and I hereby formally apologize for thinking (or calling, as the case may be) you a troglodyte. You apparently have more than a few functioning neurons and I have no clue why you have chosen to present yourself on those occasions as an arrogant moron.

Of likely further surprise to you, I agree with much of your latest post (above). Your thoughts still present great gaping holes in consistency, but you nevertheless do present some valid and sensible ideas.

I prefer to deal with the negative aspects of your post first, in order that I may close on a positive note, as I am quite sincere in my agreement with parts of what you wrote.

You spent a great deal of effort in a, "Neener, neener, we didn't get nuked last weekend", reply to Nikolai. In doing so you reminded me greatly of those who took George Orwell to task when the world of 1984 didn't arrive precisely in 1984 A.D. Nikolai has a greatly different perspective than you do apparently, but it will nonetheless provide even you with a multi-dimensional image if you will incorporate it into your thinking. The People and events that he described were real, and the main idea, that a holiday weekend would be a good time for an attack, is entirely in keeping with George Washington's attack on the Hessians on Christmas Eve. I'm quite sure that the colonial army was viewed as "terrorists" by the British and that they represented a "New World Order" to King George. You also ignored the fact that his post was a caution ("Keep your eyes peeled and be ready to run like hell.") which is almost always good advice.

As for his being contrite or apologizing, neither are appropriate. As far as I can see, the only assertion that he made ("Clintons (sic) administration is about to be gutted.") has yet to be proven one way or the other and the idea that someone else is responsible for a distressful reaction on your or anyone else's part is simply incorrect. Taking responsibility for yourself is an important part of being an adult.

Your "good guy/bad guy" lists embody the seeds of censorship and spell the death of free speech. To be specific, you have made it clear why Nikolai made your list, and you're certainly not the only one who squirms because Andy does not suffer those he perceives as fools. Neither am I under any illusions as to why I made your list, but your inclusion of "Y2KPro" baffles me. I agree that anyone, "On a Mission From God", belongs on the noise and disruption list, but as I recall, the last time you appeared here you stood side by side with him and defended him and his position vigorously. At the least, that is inconsistent and at most, deceitful.

I agree with your "good guy" list, although in the case of Master Poole, the "healthy" part will certainly be that it is a learning experience for him. Still, I could not exclude him (or indeed you) without turning my back on much that I have believed in for most of my life.

Your comment regarding your own conceit and usefulness is rather transparent and would have been better left unsaid if it were true.

Your point, ". . .that the moderate GI's on this forum, along with the moderate DGI's on the various de-bunker forae (sic) (myself included), are almost certainly closer in their relative positions than are the extremists on either side", is apparent and I agree.

Your words, "For the record, I wouldnt (sic) associate myself with "ANTI-PREP pollys" any more than I would with the likes of Gary "Lets knock the world down and rebuild it MY way" North", could be my own. They describe my position exactly.

I suspect that you must agree however that the difference between, "sensible discourse" and "playground squabbling" is a value judgment and by definition if left to a moderator, bars truly free speech. In the same way that I detest racists, I abhor those who waste my time with what I perceive to be "garbage", yet to bar such would make us less.

Your closing remarks to the effect that, ". . .very spooked people can sit around agreeing with each other about how good 50 gallon plastic barrels are for storing bleach (or similar), whilst being "informed" of every move of the "NWO" by the above named (and self appointed) conoscenti (sic)", are every bit as extreme as the posts that you complain of, yet your meaning is clear and I agree with that meaning.

In summary, it would appear that the characteristics of this forum that offend your sense of "rightness", or of mine, or of anyone's, are part and parcel of that which has been successful enough to draw in the first place, hold in the second place and motivate in the third place, each of us who has chosen to spend time and effort posting to this thread. There is an old saying to the effect that it's unwise to attempt to fix something that is not broken. As near as I can tell, this has been and continues to be the single most frequented Y2K forum on the web. I am hereby on record as holding the opinion that, "Don't screw with a good thing" is the wisest course of action vis a vis the functioning of this forum.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 01, 1999.

why not just display IP octets? *THAT* is **GUARANTEED** to cut down on "trolls"! Then the posters who use multiple handles will be recognised as well. No biggy

-- just (wondering@won.der), June 01, 1999.

Must be my mood right now, but some of the "multiple morphs" of inane comments by Y2K Pro, et. al. seem, well... redundant.

What IS the "Forum" definition of a troll?

(Not the definition of "is" and what it isn't).

What is acceptable and what is not?

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

Diane,

The only person who can answer that is the person who pays for it. Everyone else is just stating an opinion. If the person who pays does not take charge, or regulate the board, why should anyone else.

Gilda,

today I absolutely agree with you.

Rick, who can see a sunrise, know it's real, and enjoy it at the same time.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@hotmail.com), June 02, 1999.

Gilda,

will you marry me?

-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), June 02, 1999.

Hardliner.

Thank you for your reply. With your permission, I'll cover the bases one by one because, as usual, your writing style, (mixing insult with compliment and rationale with emotiveness) has inspired me to respond. So here goes.

(snip) To begin with, I must admit that your post astonished me. On both of the two previous occasions that you crossed my path, you convinced me that you were a troglodyte with no redeeming value. If I did not refer to you as such, I certainly thought it. (end snip)

How coincidental. During our last two debates, I too had come to the conclusion that I was dealing with a rock-headed clodhopper who could easily come third in a two-way contest and couldnt locate his own rear-quarter with the use of both hands and a map, although I was of course far too polite to spell this out. *G* I am sincerely surprised and delighted to be in a position to re-assess this view, which, I confess, may have been premature.

(snip) Your latest effort has caused me to re-evaluate that conclusion and I hereby formally apologize for thinking (or calling, as the case may be) you a troglodyte. You apparently have more than a few functioning neurons and I have no clue why you have chosen to present yourself on those occasions as an arrogant moron. (end snip)

Likewise, I may have been hasty in my supposition, and in the general spirit of reconciliation engendered by this thread, I unreservedly apologise to you for ever thinking that you had less sense than you were born with, as it is now clear to me that you are blessed with occasional bouts of lucidity. *G*

(snip) Of likely further surprise to you, I agree with much of your latest post (above). Your thoughts still present great gaping holes in consistency, but you nevertheless do present some valid and sensible ideas. (end snip)

Thank you for your words of encouragement. I assure you that any element of my post which you may have perceived to be lacking consistency can be put down to an awareness on my part that I can tend towards verbosity, and an endeavour to keep my posts as brief as is humanly possible. You should also bear in mind that, as a resident of the United Kingdom, it happens on occasion that my usage of British English can come across to those beyond our shores as both pedantic and arrogant. I assure you that this is not my intent. I will, for your further understanding, attempt to elucidate further in this response in the hope that it may clarify my position.

(snip) I prefer to deal with the negative aspects of your post first, in order that I may close on a positive note, as I am quite sincere in my agreement with parts of what you wrote.

You spent a great deal of effort in a, "Neener, neener, we didn't get nuked last weekend", reply to Nikolai. In doing so you reminded me greatly of those who took George Orwell to task when the world of 1984 didn't arrive precisely in 1984 A.D. Nikolai has a greatly different perspective than you do apparently, but it will nonetheless provide even you with a multi-dimensional image if you will incorporate it into your thinking. The People and events that he described were real, and the main idea, that a holiday weekend would be a good time for an attack, is entirely in keeping with George Washington's attack on the Hessians on Christmas Eve. I'm quite sure that the colonial army was viewed as "terrorists" by the British and that they represented a "New World Order" to King George. You also ignored the fact that his post was a caution ("Keep your eyes peeled and be ready to run like hell.") which is almost always good advice.

As for his being contrite or apologizing, neither are appropriate. As far as I can see, the only assertion that he made ("Clintons (sic) administration is about to be gutted.") has yet to be proven one way or the other and the idea that someone else is responsible for a distressful reaction on your or anyone else's part is simply incorrect. Taking responsibility for yourself is an important part of being an adult. (end snip)

I agree in part. My example, using Nikoli and his recent "heads up" post, was designed to illustrate how easily an individual with an extreme view can "hijack" any thread they choose with foam-lipped raving on a conspiracy of your choice. These posts usually have almost nothing to do with the forum's stated purpose, and (in my opinion) even less to do with the broader topic of Y2K. They do however (as pointed out in another reply above) tend to dilute the efficacy of the more sane posts, and generally destroy the credibility of the thread, or even the forum itself. They also have the capacity to scare the pants of any newcomer. I am of the opinion that once one starts subscribing to these theories, one throws oneself onto a steep and slippery slope which cannot fail to lead to paranoid delusion. There are many places on the web which are perfectly equipped to deal with the discussion of these issues, and I simply opine that such discourse should be redirected to a more suitable home. But I suppose it could represent more of a problem for your "side" than for mine, because the forum does have a broad negative leaning, and therefore any overt nuttiness will tend to reflect more harshly on those who choose to sit on the same side of the fence as the poster. We can debate this till the cows come home, but Im happy to leave it at "we agree to differ" if you are. I do however agree entirely with your asessment of adult responsibility. But I still assert that the original question was asked in order to gain our opinions on how to improve the forum, and as much as I am committed to freedom of speech and responsibility, I am also a realist.

(snip) Your "good guy/bad guy" lists embody the seeds of censorship and spell the death of free speech. To be specific, you have made it clear why Nikolai made your list, and you're certainly not the only one who squirms because Andy does not suffer those he perceives as fools. Neither am I under any illusions as to why I made your list, but your inclusion of "Y2KPro" baffles me. I agree that anyone, "On a Mission From God", belongs on the noise and disruption list, but as I recall, the last time you appeared here you stood side by side with him and defended him and his position vigorously. At the least, that is inconsistent and at most, deceitful. (end snip)

The establishment of "approved/banned" lists is, frankly, a misinterpretation of my intent. Maybe you chose to ignore the part where I stated that I was NOT in favour of banning any individual based on their past behaviour, but simply the moderation of ALL posts to ensure that whoever the poster may be, the post stays "on topic", and "within the bounds of reasonable debate established by the moderating team". I see no reason to interpret this as an attack on free speech.

(snip) I agree with your "good guy" list, although in the case of Master Poole, the "healthy" part will certainly be that it is a learning experience for him. Still, I could not exclude him (or indeed you) without turning my back on much that I have believed in for most of my life. (end snip)

My lists were not compiled as some kind of "heroes and villains" roll call, they were simply my clumsy example of the fascinating mix of opinions and intellects which we could benefit from IF the forum was designed to promote debate rather than allowing each and every issue to decend into squabbles and extremism. Your wish (if I interpret it correctly) to exclude myself, and Y2kPro from the debate seems to speak more of your desire to silence or exclude those who most passionately vary from your own position. Most people are competent at defending their opinions intellectually if given the space and respect neccessary. By demanding a higher standard from EVERYONES postings, you exclude nobody while at the same time placing a far greater (not lesser) pressure on the poster to stand up and take questions from the floor. This is, I believe, the foundation of healthy debate.

(snip) Your comment regarding your own conceit and usefulness is rather transparent and would have been better left unsaid if it were true. (end snip)

The truth is nothing to be afraid of. I fail to see what benefit there would have been in obscuring this part of my statement. If you choose to see it as a transparency, so be it. That does not make it so.

(snip) Your point, ". . .that the moderate GI's on this forum, along with the moderate DGI's on the various de-bunker forae (sic) (myself included), are almost certainly closer in their relative positions than are the extremists on either side", is apparent and I agree. (end snip)

Apparent it may be, but there is little evidence of it within this forum as it currently stands. And hence my suggestion.

(snip) Your words, "For the record, I wouldnt (sic) associate myself with "ANTI-PREP pollys" any more than I would with the likes of Gary "Lets knock the world down and rebuild it MY way" North", could be my own. They describe my position exactly. (end snip)

Then you and I, sir, are the perfect illustration of the validity of the premise as a whole. We agree broadly, and yet have been guilty of extremism and childish name calling in the past. My desire to see an end to such is, I presume, echoed by your affirmation of the point. The question, (if we agree that we both desire the outcome), is how best to go about achieving it.

(snip) I suspect that you must agree however that the difference between, "sensible discourse" and "playground squabbling" is a value judgment and by definition if left to a moderator, bars truly free speech. In the same way that I detest racists, I abhor those who waste my time with what I perceive to be "garbage", yet to bar such would make us less. (end snip)

Indeed, but in most civilised countries, the principle of free speech does carry limitations and personal responsibilities. Your example of racism is a good analogy. In my country, public expression of racist beliefs is legislated against by law. Inciting racial hatred is an offence punishable by imprisonment. I cannot say that this fact concerns me as regards its limitations of my right to free speech. If the moderators here decide to establish a policy whereby "All and every opinion will be permitted, even in such cases where the premise of the opinion assumes the superiority of one race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or class over any other" then I shall lament the loss of a potentially valuable debating environment, and move on to pastures new.

(snip) Your closing remarks to the effect that, ". . .very spooked people can sit around agreeing with each other about how good 50 gallon plastic barrels are for storing bleach (or similar), whilst being "informed" of every move of the "NWO" by the above named (and self appointed) conoscenti (sic)", are every bit as extreme as the posts that you complain of, yet your meaning is clear and I agree with that meaning. (end snip)

If you understood my meaning, then my (maybe too emotive) point was made. My intent is not to appear extreme, I simply sought to illustrate the picture which (I believe) many newcomers and moderates will be presented with IF the slow (but consistent) deterioration of this forum be allowed to continue. It has been said before. A move to "silence the voice of opposition" would tarnish the reputation of the silencer's position beyond repair. Instead, why not silence the voice of extremism, and create an environment where moderate thinkers can seek common ground and build bridges. Is that not preferable ?

(snip) In summary, it would appear that the characteristics of this forum that offend your sense of "rightness", or of mine, or of anyone's, are part and parcel of that which has been successful enough to draw in the first place, hold in the second place and motivate in the third place, each of us who has chosen to spend time and effort posting to this thread. There is an old saying to the effect that it's unwise to attempt to fix something that is not broken. As near as I can tell, this has been and continues to be the single most frequented Y2K forum on the web. I am hereby on record as holding the opinion that, "Don't screw with a good thing" is the wisest course of action vis a vis the functioning of this forum. (end snip)

Again, we can agree to differ. I prefer the analogy (continuing your own) that while the vehicle may not be "broken" as such, it is (I believe) suffering from extreme wear and tear, regularly emitting belches of black smoke, rattling loudly over each pothole, and is, frankly, in considerable need of a thorough service. The move to moderate, if executed wisely, could I think provide for thousands more miles of happy motoring. But dont forget to fasten your seat belt.

Best Wishes

W0lv3r1n3

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

One suggestion that was posted above was 'listing the poster' with the post on the new questions page. I see that it has been implemented. Thank you.

Perhaps another slight change that we could enjoy would be to put the name of the poster at the top of each answer on a thread, instead of the bottom.

This was mentioned before on another thread. I am sorry to say that I cannot credit the originator of the idea, but I think it has some merit and should be considered.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 02, 1999.

There are some limitations to the Greenspun forum software that we can not change.

Keep the comments coming.

Observing your responses for now.

-- Time Bomb 2000 Forum Sysop (y2ktimebomb2000@yahoo.com), June 02, 1999.

1.When this is a top active forum, there will always be an element of disagreeing persons or groups that try to capture an audience here, it speaks of the quality of others posting and accurately anwering questions of newcomers.

2. It is easy to agree with the concept that there will always be various viewpoints that will confuse, this is good practice and preparation for learning to filter out the opposite thinkers.

3. Evaluating what groups, gov, bus actions and thoughts are, also what individuals are thinking, doing - is a part of the analysis -leaving the anon aspect allows continued monitoring of the same. Easier to track the barometer or heartbeat.

my vote is to leave as is - thanks for the interest in votes.

-- Old (wise@oneof.world), June 06, 1999.

Delete only the very, very most obscene. The cocoa butter post of a few weeks ago comes to mind.

Otherwise, leave it be. If my opinions and worries cannot stand some challenge, then they need it very badly........

-- Jon Williamson (pssomerville@sprintmail.com), June 07, 1999.