Instead of all pessimistic (in their y2k views) persons being in charge of what gets discussed on this NG, why not get an optimist or two to help keep the discussion 'middle of the road'?

I have read most, if not all of what Mr. Decker writes on y2k, and think he would be a valuable addition to the "mod" team.

Any seconds?

-- Whynot (get@decker.as a moderator), October 31, 1999

Answers

No.

Not even open for discussion. They have their own "discussion" board.

About half of the existing TBY2K Mod team already hover around a mid- point 5-ish.

Diane, a "5"
TBY2K Sysop #1

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

are there any true doomers?the pollies are always accusing the sysops of being doomers,but a "5"is more of an "inconviencer"than a "doomer",isn't it?

-- zoobie,a "10" (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 31, 1999.

Only if the following describes Ken Decker, which I seriously doubt that it does.

About

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/policy.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20% 28Y2000%29

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.

-- About (about@about.about), October 31, 1999.

Whynot,

There's something that you maybe don't understand. This is that everyone here is a moderator. Everyone here helps to set the tone and the pace of the discussion. Mr. Decker has certainly already contributed much to that tone and pace, sometimes bringing lively debate to the forum, and occasionally starting flame wars.

Nobody is "in charge of what gets discussed on this NG..."

There is a "team of moderators," which is made up of a handful of longtime regular posters. It is not a cabal of manipulators. Occasionally we have discussed certain issues of what's happening on the forum, but no votes were taken, no overall strategies were planned for keeping the discussion pessimistic, and there is not a conspiracy to keep optimists from posting here.

There are also a few Sysops with the "delete keys," who have different approaches, and different feelings about what is appropriate and what is not. None have ever deleted an "optimistic" post simply because it was not agreed with. Things that have been deleted were generally totally nasty and sick and sometimes included personal information about someone else. There were also a few cases of someone stealing someone else's handle to say something nasty and sick.

There is nothing stopping Mr. Decker, or you for that matter, from influencing the tone and content of what gets discussed on the forum. Other than -- people's responses! If the forum is generally pessimistic, (and often downright scary!) that's because the bulk of the participants are pessimistic about the possibilities, some frighteningly so. There is nothing stopping anyone from laying out their case for optimism. They just have to be willing to deal with the responses. So far, most of the people laying out a case for optimism have based their cases on air, and personal attacks.

Please, consider yourself to be a moderator, and provide a reason for more people to take the optimistic side by giving a fact- based, logical arguement for your case. People have been begging for this for months!!! It has not come to pass.

-- (one@ofthe."moderators"), October 31, 1999.

Oh, wait a minute. Youse guys are serious. I just assumned this was another of Zoobies hole-the-head threads. My mistake.

-- Lon Frank (lgal@exp.net), October 31, 1999.

Still, you gotta laugh. It's an interesting idea, and of course we all contribute to what's here.

But Diane's reaction is a howler. She says "NO!" She says "they" (the hated enemy) have "their" own board! She says "don't even think about it." And this represents a '5'? Sounds to me like a particularly thin- skinned and possessive doomer.

Diane, those whose opinions really *are* moderate aren't "them", and "they" aren't out to take your precious keys away. We are all "us". You can go back to plying us with links, and we'll continue to figure out what they mean, OK?

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

Hey,I've made,to date,one hole-the-head thread.Who's to say trepanation couldn't be a valuable part of most people's prep?

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 31, 1999.

Flint,

Okay. Discuss it. Fine.

But, you know my thoughts on the matter.

*Grin*

Must be Halloween.

EVERYONE IS a moderator here... even you Flint... sort'a.

*Sigh*

Diane

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

too much cranial pressure,Diane.You know what to do(wink)

-- zoobie the nutbag (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), October 31, 1999.

Ain't gon happen, uh-uh, no way , negatory, hasta la never, no.

That blowhard can't open his mouth without spewing at least 10,000 words, our server could not handle it. If he starts butting in on all of our threads the server will only be able to feed them out at a snails pace. Don't even think about it.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), October 31, 1999.

Whynot:

I read Deckers stuff. Sometimes it provides some information. Sometimes some ideas. I appreciate the time he spends putting it together. The point is that you are suggesting that the present moderators are selectively removing material that disagrees with Decker. I would need information demonstrating that to agree. Seems to me that they do a good job. Of course, I could be wrong. I often am.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Diane:

By-the-way, I think Flint is correct. If I wasn't leaving town, I would try to figure-out what he said. I'm printing it out and will work on it on the plane. But it sounds correct.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

As if we needed more censoring! If Decker was made a moderator, then it would only be fair that a comparable nut in the doomer camp were also.

Why not instead ask our present moderators to reflect often on the need for moderation, and attempt to resist the finger-trigger delete key? We all know what happens when governing bodies become too large...

-- Chris (#$%^&@pond.com), October 31, 1999.

Chris:

"As if we needed more censoring! If Decker was made a moderator, then it would only be fair that a comparable nut in the doomer camp were also."

What censoring is going on? Man, if this site is censored, I would like to see what is being removed. Come on Diane: Fess-up.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

I think it's less the size of the governing body, than the size of the governing ego.

I'm sure if Ken Decker were moderator, he'd do the same thing I would -- throw away the keys and forget about the whole idea. This forum is fine just the way it is.

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

Flint:

As you once said to me "once again I agree with you". But:

Diane, those whose opinions really *are* moderate aren't "them", and "they" aren't out to take your precious keys away. We are all "us". You can go back to plying us with links, and we'll continue to figure out what they mean, OK?

I have little trouble with Kant, but I will have to work on this one.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Z:

Unlike many here, I haven't seen any attempt to "disrupt" this forum. I've seen both abusive and thoughtful people of all persuasions here. I just skip on by most of the abusive posts regardless of viewpoint (if I can even discern that viewpoint. Sometimes when one poster calls another an idiot, I need to do a bit of research to figure out which one proposes what viewpoint).

But I'm drawing a very different distinction here from that being drawn by Diane. While I distinguish posts according to how much thought went into them regardless of viewpoint being presented, Diane distinguishes according to to conformance with the "correct" opinion that we are in Very Big Trouble. There is no forum anywhere that I know of devoted exclusively to the thoughtful or the abusive. The "they" Diane refers to are the ones with the "wrong" opinion, who should go away and leave "her" pessimistic (oops, "moderate") forum alone.

The original suggestion by Whynot implies (or at least I infer) that we should have at least one moderator who expects y2k to be manageable, and says so clearly and politely. And we do not. Diane can claim to expect a '5' all she wants, but her complaints about misbehavior have WITHOUT EXCEPTION been directed at optimists. This despite the fact that some of the pessimistic people (like Andy) do little more than crosspost long, off-topic articles and call others foul names.

The behavior Diane nominally complains of is *at least* as common among doomers as pollies. Her exclusive castigation of pollies for such behavior speaks volumes. I personally expect many noteworthy problems to befall us, but if Diane is a '5', I'm a -5.

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

Flint:

Okay, let's ask her.

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Flint,

And you are a bore.

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (faryna@groupmail.com), October 31, 1999.

Stan:

I think that we owe Flint the right of a response from Diane. I posted it as a seperate thread. She didn't do well. But it may help. We need to foster discussion.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Appreciate the grade Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com).

Discussion fostered... sorta.

Now its time for me to bake some pumpkin pies.

Happy Halloween all.

Diane

Flint's Question to Diane

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 001gHz

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

Diane:

Good luck with the pies. Mine did well. I tried one with mango. Wow. You might not like it, but I did!!

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

I cannot recall reading even a SINGLE post by Decker that was not clearly, purposefully, intentionally snide, arrogant,insulting and hateful toward someone. If that is the type of person you would want for a moderator....it is surprising to me.

-- jeanne (jeanne@hurry.now), October 31, 1999.

jeanne:

"I cannot recall reading even a SINGLE post by Decker that was not clearly, purposefully, intentionally snide, arrogant,insulting and hateful toward someone. If that is the type of person you would want for a moderator....it is surprising to me."

I think that some critics are saying that this a description of Diane. Now, I don't agree but I think that is what they are saying. I would exclude Flint from that group. I can't agree with your description of Decker. Ken makes some good points. Not that I agree with them; but good points; just go with the flow.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Gawd!!!????!!!???!!!!! Barf!!!! Puke!!!!

I know that this is Halloween, but the very thought is worse than ANY Stephen King idea. The last thing that you want to do is give that clown any such role. You might as well invite CPR on board, at least you would know in advance what you are dealing with.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 31, 1999.

KOS:

I presume you are mud wrest., because you want to invite someone on board. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I wouldn't respond, but, I am on the road again and won't have this pleasure for a long while.

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Hey KOS, I hear Paul Milne is going to be moderating the deBunkery soon.

-- a (a@a.a), October 31, 1999.

What KoS said, and Diane, and Stan! Stan, I try to model myself on you, but I am much ruder than you are. I like what you said...

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 31, 1999.

Thank you for the suggestion, but I am against the principle of forum "moderation." The exchange of ideas should be free and open. The existence of censors casts a shadow over the forum. If you go back and read my original response to the announcement, you'll find my position has not changed.

If censors were required, I would strongly prefer neutral parties. Diane Squire has a specific agenda... as her thousands of posts on this forum amply indicate. Russ Lipton (Big Dog) shares the same dogmatic mindset. My contact with Chuck Rienzo (sp?) has been fairly positive, but I must question some of his occasional posts.

I wish they could happily move over the the preparations forum... and let this group ramble on.

As for me, I will not become a censor. I'm sure the "sysops" will find my characterization unfair. C'est la vie. I fail to see how the presence of the censors have added a great deal the forum. The one acceptable role for facilitators (moral 'suasion) is quite impossible. Because Ed Yourdon chose his "true believers," we have a striking double standard.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

The way I understand it is that Ed Yourdon, the author of Timebomb 2000, originated this forum. Therefore, it is predicated upon the ideas, opinions and scenarios expressed and described in his book. If anyone does not like the "personality" of this forum, they are free, are they not, to start a forum mirroring their own take on Y2K. Ken, you seem an intelligent type -- why not start your own board?

-- For (Auld@Lang.Syne), November 01, 1999.

I have noticed that the words "ass-rape" keep getting deleted from my posts.....the p.c. movement here is a scourge.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

"Auld,"

Your response is something like telling the writer of a letter to editor to start his own paper. Whatever Ed's motivations were (and the original invitation was quite broad), TB 2000 has evolved into a well-used public forum. My comments are like occasional letters to the editor. I understand a "preparations" forum was started just for those who do not want to talk Y2K... just preparations. I have kept my original promise and have never visited. This forum concerns what will happen with the rollover problem. My writings have centered on that very question.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

I understand that the Humpty Dumpty forum is for post-rollover discussion. Have you tried there?

The moderators and long-time posters on this board, including its originator, Ed Yourdon, have consistently adhered to those premises (and their tangents!) expressed and described in the book, Timebomb 2000. I also understand "preparation" on this (the original) board to mean information preparation and discussion, as opposed to physical preparation and discussion on the other forum, so as to be prepared against any unfortunate eventualities. Perhaps the moderators will correct me if I am in error.

Be that as it may, it appears somewhat masochistic to continue banging one's head against this particular brick wall. I still think it would be a marvellous idea to start your own forum, which would, I am sure, prove immensely popular.

-- For (Auld@Lang.Syne), November 01, 1999.

I would really enjoy seeing Ken start his own forum. I would read his many writings, as I do enjoy them. Ken, please continue to post your reality checks, as many are listening. It will sink in someday!

-- (legs@long.lean), November 01, 1999.

For most of the world, Y2K is a non-issue. I suppose I could do a Y2K web page or forum... but what's the point with 60 days left? Besides, I think I serve a useful purpose on this forum.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), November 01, 1999.

Weel I guess Decker is out by his own disqualification. Darn. I like the guy. Chuck to seems a decent sort.

this statement is pretty telling tho'...

No.

Not even open for discussion. They have their own "discussion" board.

About half of the existing TBY2K Mod team already hover around a mid- point 5-ish.

Diane, a "5" TBY2K Sysop #1

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

I thought Phil Greenspun was the sysop here? Aren't you just a moderator? Who are "they" and why is Mr. Decker one of "them"?

You aren't very tolerant are you Ms. Squire?

-- James Tilamook (address@correction.requested), November 01, 1999.

geez people...

I've rarely seen Diane post anything but links to information that might be interesting for those of us on the forum. She is an invaluable source of information.

Also, the disinformationists here often post nothing but vulgarity and insults. Diane and the other moderators are more tolerant than I could ever be. There is no reason to be rude in posts.

Good job, ALL you moderators... keep up the good work!!

-- booann (keepthefaith@hold.on), November 01, 1999.

Instead of all pessimistic (in their y2k views) persons being in charge of what gets discussed on this NG, why not get an optimist or two to help keep the discussion 'middle of the road'?

This is totally non sequitur and laden with false assumptions. Again we have the optimist/pessimist dichotomy,...a perfect example of the immaturity that prompts posts like this. There is a broad spectrum of opinion here as to the potential for Y2K problems....Seems like Critt Jarvis just posted something great on "the middle of the road"....Is your suggestion a product of selective reading or selective understanding?

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), November 01, 1999.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

While I'm certainly a fan of freedom of the press this is not really a case of press censorship. Freedom belongs to the owners of the presses. If TBY2K choose to publish only the opinions of a single person (like most personal web pages), that would be just fine. Publishing just the opinions of the owner and a few friends is also perfectly legitimate. Ed Yourdon decided, instead to encourage people from all points of view to offer their considered opinions. In doing so he does not give up any rights to control what content will appear on his forum, any more than a newspaper editor has to publish all "letters to the editor".

I think that almost everyone here recognizes the value of reading alternative points of view. Even though the forum is provided for those who are concerned about Y2K, people with a reasoned opposing POV do help us to avoid "group think." We should be questioning our assumptions and re-examining our data, and seeking new sources of information.

Forum moderation does help to make TBY2K a useful source of information for the many who visit. While the number of "deletes" may be a very small percentage of the whole, the fact that deletions are being made at all must reduce the incentive for folks to post garbage.

I would hesitate to say that TBY2K is the best forum on the web, since I have a very small experience in this area. It is, however, the only place I care to visit every day, given what I think is coming down the pike.

I would be uncomfortable letting our IP addresses be easily viewed by anyone who somehow manages to be present on this forum for more than just a few hours per day, while also claiming to be gainfully employed. I also would hesitate to consider anyone for moderator who is buddy buddy with people who threaten to do a "deep background" on the posters who annoy them the most.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 02, 1999.

I would be uncomfortable letting our IP addresses be easily viewed by anyone who somehow manages to be present on this forum for more than just a few hours per day, while also claiming to be gainfully employed.

I can think of more than a few regulars here that fit that catagory. The question is....employed by WHOM?

I also would hesitate to consider anyone for moderator who is buddy buddy with people who threaten to do a "deep background" on the posters who annoy them the most.

Careful now, or the double standard kicks in. THIS forums moderating body has editted posts, inserted comments into "polly" posts, called for "banning" of certain posters on the basis of disagreement only, attempted to frame "pollys" for posts they didn't make (and left an obvious technical error in their wake) and threatened to contact employers and ISP's of posters. Hell, in the 'ask a question' page it clearly states they will contact your ISP and attempt to get your blocked!

You need to be more aware of who is doing what behind the screen. A moderate "polly" would be able to check IP's to see if vendors (or their shills) were posting misinformation to increase hype (and then increase sales). "doomers" who post under different handles could be exposed (in the same way "pollys" who post under different handles in an attempt to be heard are "outed")

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), November 02, 1999.

-- Chose Wisely (who@you.associate.with), November 02, 1999.

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Just for the record, a moderator is someone who holds an unbiased stance. Generally someone for whom the outcome of said issue has no consequences. I defy you to find anyone on the planet who fits that description.

We don't need a moderator we need mutual respect. If you don't agree with what someone says - fine. Express your own view in such a way that makes sense. If you don't LIKE what somebody else says then just shut up and deal with it. Nobody really cares if you don't personally like someone or their words. Inflicting your lack of tolerance on others just makes you look like an doofus.

-- Dolma Lhamo (I'm@nonymous.now), November 02, 1999.