I just saw the thread titled "Diane J. Witch". This deserves some comments from me (a long time lurker and occasional poster).

I HATE cencorship. I often have disagreed with Diane's decisions as moderator. HOWEVER I defend her now!!

I say the CONTENT of ANYONE'S post stands or falls on the MERITS OF THE MESSAGE -- REGARDLESS OF THE MESSENGER and REGARDLESS OF ANY CHARACTERISTIC OR ATTRIBUTE OF THE MESSENGER.

This is why I hate cencorship. Consider the value and ideas presented. Truth has value; falsehoods do not. This is SO on target for Y2K. Truth might save your life...falsehoods might get you killed.

I wish we on this forum...hell I wish the whole world would stop evaluating the message based on who it comes from! I seem to remember a quote from some history book..."I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". We've come a long way in this country, huh? I say EVERY person has the right and responsibility to make their own religious and other personal choices. Each of us will live with the consequences before and after death. My religious and world view is apparantly different from Ms. Squire's. MY POINT IS THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF Y2K ISSUES OR OTHER ISSUES OF SOCIAL DISCOURSE. I think Diane J. Squire has been an absolute treasure for this forum and for Y2K in general. I say this having disagreed with her decisions as moderator. I say this having been dissapointed in her resonses to criticism on occassion. My reaction to her decisions and responses on occasion have nothing to do with my opinion on the value of her post. Am I a throwback to a bygone era when people actually thoughtfully considered ideas and issues instead of stereotyping and reacting -- only thinking in superficial "sound bites" ,"labels" and "shoot the messenger emotional reactionary thinking"?

Remember English Comp? Remember writing a "compare and contrast" essay? Had to actually THINK instead of REACT, huh? I wish to GOD people would start using their minds more and THINK and CONSIDER instead of "label" and "attack" -- just coined a term -- "intellectual tribalism" -- they think differently than our tribe does?...attack and destroy THEM...not their message...ignore it...we al "know" it's false. Sad, people, sad. Sometimes labels and attacks DO have value...consider the "intellectual tribalism" example I just wrote. Choose your verbal sparing tools, then use them with fair mindedness and intellectual honesy AND CONSIDERATION/CURTESY/MANNERS!!!!!!! (and don't forget skill...I forget some points on first draft when I feel passionate about things...passion and emotion are two separate things, too!)

Ed Yourdon was right in his "Soronora Y2K" essay. The level of civility has decreased a LOT. I've used several handles, post and threads on this forum to try and get people to THINK ABOUT ISSUES while there is still time -- instead of slumbering in their superficial thinking that I recognize will cause them and others grave distress if TSHTF and their "world view" is "adjusted". I've done this by saying things that might make people think about ideas, issues and concepts -- because I've found that dialogs are rare now days. Mostly it's just two monologs. Both sides just repeat themselves AT, not TOO the other side, don't listen or resond to the points mentioned -- just dig in deeper and repeat themselves, get angry and attack the other side in whatever way comes to mind.

To sum this up...and it's obvious this is one of my pet peeves (an understatement?)...when arguing, never raise your voice when you can reinforce your arguments (i.e. points). How 'bout some honest, fair minded debate and discussion on ideas, issues and concepts instead of people and their "labels"?

-- Doesnotmatter (Anon@here.now), July 28, 1999

Answers

It's hard to talk about issues when you have these stupid pollys running around disrupting everything.

-- (pollys@gonna.die), July 28, 1999.

pollys@gonna.die

Baiting "stupid pollys" is as "disrupting" as baiting *doomers* and especially suspicious from an anon.

learned my lesson....

-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), July 28, 1999.

I have a lot of respect for Diane, but think that in her role as a moderator she is far too tolerant of pointless space-wasting crudities that drive off fence-sitters and the fainthearted. I also believe these wrongly-tolerated crudities tar the users of this forum by association. Flushing pointless debris like the posts 10+ days ago by "doomers s*ck" (yes, I am aware of a new leaf by that poster) isn't censorship; it's having the most minimal of standards, hopefully enough to rise above the level of mindless, immoral brutes. I aspire to this in my behavior and in my associations. Anyone welcome on this forum should IMO as well.

www.y2ksafeminnesota.com

-- MinnesotaSmith (y2ksafeminnesota@hotmail.com), July 28, 1999.

Congratulations, Diane, you have hit the big time. When the pollies start attacking your (alleged) religious beliefs (e.g., Chicken Little's "witch" thread) rather than what you actually do or say, you know that you are truly doing the right thing for the Y2K cause. And I, for one, royally salute you.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), July 28, 1999.

Hmmm . . . Diane, competance speaks for itself and quality is obvious to those who look for it. Thanks for the effort, I appreciate it.

-- Procopious (whynot@zog.net), July 28, 1999.

Diane, you go girl!

-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), July 28, 1999.

I've found Diane's research to be A-1 and her personal refs. are better. To me she is totally trusted, not only by me, but by people I like and trust. Call her a witch or a bitch, she is my kindda people.

Go Diane,

-- CT (ct@no.yr), July 29, 1999.

I sure wouldn't want Diane's "job" here.

And yes, she does have my support, 101% <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 29, 1999.

If Diane's task was easy Ed would still be doing it. Diane stepped in where even Ed feared to continue treading. Way to be babe!!! Keep going. There's no manual for how to run the last civilized source for uncensored info about the biggest global change to come down the pike since the ice age. Anyone who doesn't like it can go hang out at csy2k.

Your doin' great.

-- R (riversoma@aol.com), July 29, 1999.

Diane? Well, from here, she looks like one strong, energetic, honest, healthy, balanced, clear-minded, forthright, compassionate woman. Her contributions to this forum have been a source of trustworthy information, consistent opinion, and unfailing dedication to the welfare of all. Diane has been, for me, a comfort and inspiration from the beginning. (You who weren't lucky enough to have seen Diane's initial few weeks on this forum missed one amazing show! The woman withstood a SERIOUS firestorm, and emerged from it unscathed, winning the acceptance and admiration of many of those who set out at first to destory her.)

I haven't read the thread labeling Diane a witch. Like Anon, I come here to grapple with Y2K issues. I'm not interested in, nor do I have time for, witnessing interpersonal nastiness; there are larger matters requiring our attention here. But I will gladly add my voice to the chorus that's singing in support of Diane.

Thank you, Diane, sincerely, for all that you give, and for all that you are.

-- Faith Weaver (suzsolutions@yahoo.com), July 29, 1999.

Faith summed up my feelings about you, Diane, to a tee. (thank you Faith). I also agree with the King. That is, his 'view' has been my reason for returning to do battle every chance I have. I keep note of 'who' finds me so terribly offensive. So far, my rifle butt contains the marks of those people I have little respect for anyway, as it should be.....keep up the wonderful work you are doing. You are quite an impressive rock, for someone with such a kind and soft interior.

I salute and support you! ;)

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), July 29, 1999.

Yes I support the general comments for Diane, she has been a tireless and methodical searcher for y2k truths and information, I fail to see why anyone would want to attack the person I suppose it was "argumentum ad hominem"? Di is in the top five of De Yourdon posters

-- Dick of the Dale (rdale@coynet.com), July 29, 1999.

It was just more worthless diatribe from the pollys.

-- (its@coming.soon), July 29, 1999.

I don't like censorship, it's a dangerous path. But I don't have time to wade thru too much junk, and pollies seem to be diluting useful stuff by swamping the site with crud.

If Diane wants to delete any thread or part of a thread, I respect and accept her judgment wholeheartedly. Haven't seen anything from her that didn't sound well-reasoned and balanced.

Diane -- do whatever you like. Ok by me.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), July 29, 1999.

Way back last December, it was Diane alone we recruited to spearhead the Y2K Preparedness drive in the Pacific NorthWest. We immediately saw Diane as *the* invaluable resource to lead the Community Preparation effort. Unfortunately, a different person dropped the ball on this promising life-saving endeavor, so Diane is in California. The Lord must have seen she would be much needed to keep TB2000 rolling along as the foremost source of truthful Y2K reporting.

Of course such an important valuable person is going to be the target of brickbats and barbs by the clueless ignorant destructive assailants of Facts. Tis the humanimal way throughout history. To our downfall and peril.

3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0 3~0

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), July 29, 1999.

I think Diane is doing a great job..........

Also, she ranks high in my books too because she hasn't threatened to eat anybody yet, no matter how hungry she might get.

-- Craig (craig@ccinet.ab.ca), July 29, 1999.

Strangely enough, I must also weigh in on Diane's side. Despite what I consider a clear bias, she has moderated with a very light hand, very close to what I consider the ideal of no moderation at all. Her viewpoint has not prevented her from permitting the full range of activity here, which I believe we need. She fully understands that it is properly up to each of us to decide what we choose to read and respond to, and what we elect to skip as wasted bandwidth. So long as this situation continues, I'm perfectly happy.

My objections to Diane derive from my observation that when you have strong opinions, it becomes extremely difficult to notice that posts attacking those you consider wrong are just as much troll posts as those attacking people you think are right. Posts attacking your enemies seem so reasonable! And Diane has made it quite clear that her opinions are strong enough to render her blind to this congruity. Combine this orientation with the power to enforce it (should she choose to), and you have a genuine threat to anyone Diane doesn't agree with. The fact that she has chosen *not* to exercise this power is very much to her credit.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), July 29, 1999.

Diane is the bomb!!!!

waggin...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), July 29, 1999.