Status of Debunking Y2K board and suggestion to restrict access to a new boar

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

This page hosted by Hypermart, the world's fastest growing business community! http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb723589

the STATUS of the Debunking Y2k Web board

On or about August 23rd, 1999, the Debunking Y2k webboard, hosted by InsideTheWeb.com has been unreachable to fully 80% of users. Those that can access, find a multitude of problems. Bottom-line, the board is unworkable presently. Unfortunately I am of the opinion the board will never again be fully functioning. Repeated inquiries to Inside the Web staff, have produced little more than boilerplate responses. Speculation as to the cause varies widely and remains largely a mystery. Best guess at present is Debunki had grown too large for ITW to handle and we swamped their resources. Lack of forum archiving, produced a board far too large, and simply overwhelmed a service better set-up for users who merely want a board to chat with 5 friends. Debunking Y2k was no longer just a board for 5 Y2k naysayers, our traffic was/is substantial and requires a more robust and stable platform. The CRASH of Debunki is a direct result of our growth and success in providing a rational voice to counter the kooks and wackos.

Not to fret, our good friend and regular from Debunking Y2k, Buddy of the DC area, has up and running an alternative to "Debunki". Coined Debunking the Y2K Hype, the board can be accessed at this address, http://www.insidetheweb.com/mbs.cgi/mb723589 This is where the "action" has shifted. Bookmark, and consider this now the place to go for the hot talk on Y2k.

This incident has driven home to me at least, the need for far more control with regards a webboard for Debunking Y2k. While many will think Y2k is over in say 4 months, most of us know this thing is gunna go into 2000 and beyond. I think it is time we got SERIOUS about the way we provide a counter-voice to the non-stop fear-mongering from the likes of Gary North, Ed Yourdon and the many profiteers who have hyped this issue beyond all rationality. We need a more robust, stable, and feature driven webboard. I also think it is time for "verification". Central to the NOISE of Y2k is the issue of INTENT. Who is behind all the FUD(fear-uncertainty-doubt)? What is their AGENDA? Are they selling something? To help counter these imposters, I think it high time we as debunkers, took a step to legitimacy ourselves. One is not expected to reveal all about oneself. This is not the point. Point is, we need to consider a system where even anonymous is an indentity, and is verifiable as one. IP addresses are fine as far as they go. Unfortunately simply relying on them is more about scaring away potential troublemakers and does little to verify and build an online indentity or community. I hope this is making sense.

Do not confuse this verification as anything more than requiring one to sign-up, provide a mailable address, pick a password, and have said mailed back to one for use in participating with the services offered. Services like being able to include a file with one's post. To take a discussion private. To post and not allow responses if desired. To modify or even delete your posts. To have yourself emailed when a response is made to your post. To be able to search archived posts beyond mere Titles but by content specific searches. To be able to "rate" a post, and view hits to each post. To have rules where violators are Locked-out once they break said rules a number of times. No longer would a CT or Lisa be able to play the games they do for long. They would "put-up" or be excluded. Honest users benefit by not having to waste time with such people, all done automatically. Put the power in the users hands, those who are legit and do not have the time or need to play games.

Y2k may come and go, but guys like North and others will not. I think a place where one can discuss all manner of internet nuts, scams, and myths is needed. Surely some exist. I would hope the online relationships built during Y2k can continue beyond and expand into other areas. There exist many software options, and new versions seem to pop-up on a daily basis. I am considering running a webboard similar to the described above. To get a feel on how you view the issue of verification, a poll. Please take a moment and participate.

More to follow, including polls. Any direct comments should be made at Buddy's board under the post where you found this link. If you came a different route, please go to Debunking the Y2k Hype and make any further comments, suggestions etc there, link above.

Doc Paulie fannybubbles@usa.net August 27, 1999

-- no (ID@this.time), August 28, 1999

Answers

censorship?

-- xout dissenting voices (???@howthings.change), August 28, 1999.

But it's all so childish. I visit once in a while, & it's like being back in grade school. If this is the general level of pollyanna discussion, does that mean that all the grown-ups are doomers?

-- can't (stand@the.noise), August 28, 1999.

How can a dozen post's a day crash a site? ..... Better beef up the server eh?

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), August 28, 1999.

"our traffic was/is substantial and requires a more robust and stable platform."

ROTFLMAO...

Gee, I must have missed something. Last time I checked, half of the traffic there was Doc talking to himself. This really is FUNNY.

So, Doc, why couldn't you guys fix it, in, say, an hour or two, like you have been saying all along. Even a day or two, or, as we have been hearing for so long, the 3 day storm! Ain't technology wonderful...

Ya'll could always come on over to the "Y2K Satire" forum here at Greenspun. Wow, they've had a grand total of 104 messages since they began 6 weeks ago. Looks like they could use some help...

ROTFLMAO...

Tick... Tock... <:00=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.


LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL! LOL!

What a cast of looney toones!! "Doc" Paulie at "fannybubbles". The schizophrenic "Buddy", a.k.a. "D.C. Buddy", a.k.a. "Doomslayer" that was throughly exposed for the jackass moron that he is in "a"'s infamous "Pollies on Parade" series. (Oh, yeah, and the same "Buddy" who PERSONALLY VOUCHED for Steve Davis' credibility back when he was vouching for Koskinen's credibility on Jim Lord's Navy report expose. Talk about cascading cross defaults -- Gawd!!!)

But Y2K problems will be fixed on failure, no-strain-no-pain, these pollies tell us Pathetic pieces of crap, each and every one of them.

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


Best guess at present is Debunki had grown too large for ITW to handle and we swamped their resources. Lack of forum archiving, produced a board far too large, and simply overwhelmed a service better set-up for users who merely want a board to chat with 5 friends.

What? Did I miss something? When did the sixth one chime in?

-- a (a@a.a), August 28, 1999.


Isn't it odd/amusing how things come around on The Wheel sometimes?

-- Sam (Gunmkr52@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

doomers are so irrational. Is that fear I see in your typing?

I can not wait to see the reactions of you loonies in 4 months when the world does not end.

Losers.

-- doomers (@re.all.losers), August 29, 1999.


I never quite understood the rationale behind setting up a board devoted to denying the very issue the board was setup up to address. And whenever I looked in, it was mostly CPR talking to himself. Certainly the board wasn't dedicated to evaluating what we might face, but rather to ridiculing those who even suspected we might face something worth evaluating.

Imagine if this board consisted mostly of posts by 'a' who specializes in trying to ridicule anyone who disagrees, rather than address the topic itself. And what 'a' didn't post would be posts from the local equivalent of Doc Paulie, perhaps Will Continue (since both Will and Doc tend to ramble incoherently). It would certainly kill this forum, just like it killed the debunker board.

At times, I really worry when I see too many threads dominated by the same few people. y2k does tend to attract extremists, who tend to be both very vocal and very thoughtless and committed. This type of person took over the debunking boards, and are trying to do the same here. It's sad.

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


the VAST majority of us will be LEADING the cheering sections (just as we are leading the preparing sections) in June 2000, if the unemployment rate is substantially below 25%, business bankruptcies are flat compared to 1999, and the rest of the worls is not in flames from war. Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), August 29, 1999.


Gawd, Flint, look who is talking about "rambling"!!!!!

At least everyone you named on BOTH forums comes to some kind of CONCLUSION, no matter how silly. Your posts just sort of ... I don't know how to quite describe it.

Hmmmm, maybe Doc Paulie's e-mail address would be appropriate ... yeah, Flint, your posts just sort of "fannybubble" their way out of the bathtub.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ