Here is a challenge to all those who truly want to engage in some thoughtful, non-insulting discussion on *Y2K* on this forum:

1. Let's say we only post ON-TOPIC threads. I have been frequenting this forum for over a year and it is getting harder and harder to wade through the off-topic posts. Even the OT's, except for the occasional one that *could* be slightly related to Y2K, need to go.

2. STOP LABELING. I am NOT a doomer! I am NOT a polly! I am NOT a troll! I am a HUMAN BEING who has been trying to wrap my mind around the whole Y2K thing for the past two years. I am a mother and a wife, a teacher and a friend, a thinking individual who VALUES thought-provoking discussion on the topic of Y2K. I have prepared for any contingency except nuclear ones, but that is my personal decision and it does NOT need to be defended to ANYONE. It does not even need to be discussed, except on a forum specifically intended for preparation advice and discussion.

Labeling just polarizes everything. Every time I read "pollies" and "doomers" (really--what stupid terms) flaming it out over something truly ridiculous and cussing and insulting each other and generally having a big pissing contest, I just shake my head and wonder where all the other "middle of the road" people on this forum are.

AFter all, one of the most important things to realize about this forum is that the majority of the lurkers and posters are NOT religious zealots/doomsday/gun nuts/take your pick. That's another label that is fun to throw around and muddy the waters/muck up the real issues at hand. That being said, the third part of the challenge....

3. When someone has posted who has OBVIOUSLY tried to start a flaming war or is obviously baiting people on this forum, COMPLETELY IGNORE IT. That's right, do not answer it at ALL. Let those who agree with the person have a mutual appreciation party and leave it at that. On the flip side, when someone has ANSWERED a real post with a flame, insult, bait, whatever, again COMPLETELY ignore it. That goes for the original poster as well as other answerers. I know #3 takes a LOT of discipline, God knows there have been many times where I just wanted to flame away at particular posters INTENT on jamming up the bandwidth with nonsense and arguments, but I don't. Just makes their job easier.

And if you find yourself arguing the same points over and over on different threads, it is time to stop. Those who will see will see, and those who won't, won't. Notice this saying can be used by EITHER side.

It takes two to play a game. When one person decides not to play the game, it is OVER.

Now, on to the business at hand....and remember everyone, no matter HOW this post is flamed, do NOT respond to the flame, but to the post itself or non-flaming, non-baiting responses.

Thanks everyone!

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 01, 1999

Answers

This is good. An even more specific (though still not fully defined) metric would be: only on-topic material that is "cut and paste", from some other, external source (i.e. poster not-equals author) which has some kind of independent credibility should be allowed as initial thread-startups.

-- Count Vronsky (vronsky@anna.lit), November 01, 1999.

Preparing,

You're intentions are sincere, but I think that things will just get more abrasive and combative from here on out. I blame the calendar and nothing else. Those of us who fear some unknown don't know what to do as we are told to relax, yet enough evidence exists to show us to not let down our guard. Those who feel it's going to be ok want desperatly to tell everyone that the time to fear is over and that it's smooth sailing from here on out into the new year.

SIXTY DAYS will come and go before the rollover and it is unlikely we will have any more facts to prove either side is correct or otherwise. So there is no "business at hand" to get back to, if either side claims the other is wrong, as we will fight each other all the way through the "CDC" and into "Day One".

Hopefully when the real-time-clock rolls into the next century we will be able to see something, anything that we can use as guidance to allow us to accept with certainty that the judgement hour has come and gone. I think most of us are looking for a sign so that we can relax and go back to the lives which have kept us so vastly seperated until the moment we suddenly became aware something was wrong with premise of two digits representing a century and we began to seek out each others company.

Please excuse me, I knocked over my water dish.......

-- hamster (hamster@mycage.com), November 01, 1999.

Hamster--hope you got the water dish thing straightened out. ;-)

The business at hand I was referring to was just the location of news, whether good or bad on this topic. I for one am experiencing major Y2K fatigue, as I am sure many others are, but I still find I want to read and participate in serious, legitimate discussion of the topic (glutton for punishment? I don't know!). Anyway, that is the business at hand I was mentioning. That, plus occasionally the brave poster will talk about what it is like to live in these two parallel worlds and I find that helps a lot, as well. It *is* rather stressful to go to work every day, act as though everything is hunkey- dorey and watch everyone else do the same and underneath, constantly wonder what the new year will bring, if anything.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 01, 1999.

I wish it was that way all along, preparing. However, some people seem to get very emotional over their positions regarding y2k, and no amount of "choose to defuse" is going to get them to stop. It makes a stressfull situation even more stressfull.

On the plus side, look at the calender. One way or the other,..we only have two more months of this. Just two more months. Then, this ends. All this ends. Either way. Come what may, good or bad, I'll be relieved when it's over, won't you? I wish this was a place you could go to just to speak to people of the same mindset, for information, comfort and support. There is no such place. Two more months..thank God.

Perhaps we could have

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), November 01, 1999.

kritter:

I fear this won't prove to be the case. It seems highly likely that your "all speculation will end" prediction will fare as poorly as the same prediction Yourdon made for last April 1. Whole threads here have been devoted to debating just how long people will continue to hold their figurative breath, but at least 3 months seems about average.

And of course, debates will address each individual problem that crops up. How serious is it? How many were affected how badly? Did any dominoes fall? What's the market doing? I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't still here, calling one another names, a year from now.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), November 01, 1999.

prepared, What a timely post. I was thinking about this all the way home tonight. If we just didn't respond, flamers would mostly stop and go away. It's difficult sometimes to keep quite when someone is being totally obnoxious but silence really is the answer. Unfortunately, it probably won't happen. However, I will do my part. thx

-- (rcarver@inacom.com), November 01, 1999.

Here is a challenge to all those who truly want to engage in some thoughtful, non-insulting discussion on *Y2K* on this forum:

Hey, I'm hip

1. Let's say we only post ON-TOPIC threads. I have been frequenting this forum for over a year and it is getting harder and harder to wade through the off-topic posts. Even the OT's, except for the occasional one that *could* be slightly related to Y2K, need to go.

I don't start new threads at all, especially one that are OT

2. STOP LABELING. I am NOT a doomer! I am NOT a polly! I am NOT a troll! I am a HUMAN BEING who has been trying to wrap my mind around the whole Y2K thing for the past two years. I am a mother and a wife, a teacher and a friend, a thinking individual who VALUES thought- provoking discussion on the topic of Y2K. I have prepared for any contingency except nuclear ones, but that is my personal decision and it does NOT need to be defended to ANYONE. It does not even need to be discussed, except on a forum specifically intended for preparation advice and discussion.

Labeling just polarizes everything. Every time I read "pollies" and "doomers" (really--what stupid terms) flaming it out over something truly ridiculous and cussing and insulting each other and generally having a big pissing contest, I just shake my head and wonder where all the other "middle of the road" people on this forum are.

Labels are stupid, but not everyone has a malicious intent when using them. For instance, I'm a caucasion. Some people call me white. But that is not true at all, I'm more of a pinkish tan. But it doesn't bother me, I know what they mean. I wish everything could be so easy to understand that we don't use labels, but life is just unfair sometimes. I really don't think there is much harm to use a label here and there, but still, I see your point. I like the term Polly and Doomer way better than I like the term troll. I mean to me a troll has always been a misfigured, leperous animal that lives in a cave and carrys off the townschildren. I may be a jerk sometimes but please! Maybe we can just start off by getting rid of that one for now.

That being said, the third part of the challenge....

3. When someone has posted who has OBVIOUSLY tried to start a flaming war or is obviously baiting people on this forum, COMPLETELY IGNORE IT. And if you find yourself arguing the same points over and over on different threads, it is time to stop. Those who will see will see, and those who won't, won't. Notice this saying can be used by EITHER side.

It takes two to play a game. When one person decides not to play the game, it is OVER.

That is alot easier said than done. First you'd have to define what a flame is. Is it just an insult? Is it just a disagreing opinion? The point of a discussion board IS TO illicite responses. Unfortunatley, those responses vary greatly from one person to the next. So, by trying to uphold Rule #3, you are really breaking Rule #2. See what I mean?

As far as redundancy of points, well, okay I see your point. But sometimes two different people can have two very different approaches to the same subject, and write a new thread according to what that person thinks. That might even make things better. Pessimists to the left, Optimists to the right. But yeah, when I see five to ten threads on the same topic I wonder why are there so many.

Now, on to the business at hand....and remember everyone, no matter HOW this post is flamed, do NOT respond to the flame, but to the post itself or non-flaming, non-baiting responses.

I Hope what I said isn't considered a flaming post

Thanks everyone!

You're welcome

-- I'm that "stupid troll" (that@Hawk and Liberty. hate so much), November 01, 1999.

Nope, "I'm that stupid troll", I didn't consider your post flaming at all. In fact, quite well thought-out and mature. Thus the response. Had you flamed, I wouldn't be responding at all. I do have to respectfully disagree with your points about #3. Flaming and baiting are usually pretty obvious. Flaming is insulting, off-the- cuff language that adds nothing *constructive* to the discussion at hand. Nothing at all wrong w/disagreeing. Some of the best threads on this forum have been full of respectful, constructive disagreement, I think everyone would agree with that. I welcome disagreement, as it leads to more well-thought out positions and philosophies. It's the immature, sometimes profane name calling and flaming I have a problem with and will completely ignore.

I do have to agree with Flint. (Hey it's a minor miracle, eh, Flint? ;-) I do think the disagreement will never end. Well, that is, unless Y2K IS bad. If it is bad *enough* this won't be up for these discussions to take place. But if it is up, then yes, I think it will continue. However, I for one will not be here at that point. I will have thanked my lucky stars that the worst case scenario that I prepared for didn't come true and will be happily moving on with life! Might not touch the computer for months.

Anyway, thanks "I'm that stupid troll" and everyone else for your responses. So far, so good. :-)

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 01, 1999.

I'm sure that's true, Flint, that there will be those who remain to continue to argue the "results" for many months to come, but there's got to be a good amount of us who will also call it quits. For me personally, it will be as soon as possible after the rollover. Not being accustomed to this high level of anxiety over possible future events, I'll be happy to throw in the towel at my earliest inkling. I will care not at that point the whys or why nots. This has been the mother of all roller coasters for me. I'll be glad to see it end.

-- kritter (kritter@adelphia.net), November 01, 1999.

kritter: AMEN TO THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 01, 1999.

Preparing: I agree with your intent especially as relates to the name calling routines we seem to fall in. Having said that and assuring you that I am conservative and a prep-bent individual, I would still question the wisdom of cutting off communications in whatever form. When the evening news comes on I flip over to the History channel or something educational. When I see flaming start or obvious trolling I simply bypass. That is not to say I bypass differing opinions. I like to see what Flint has to say and even Hoffy when he isn't flaming. You make a valid point but it treads very close to censuring.

-- Neil G.Lewis (pnglewis1@yahoo.com), November 01, 1999.

Neil:

SO??

a sysop

-- I AM a number # 3 (sysop@number.3), November 02, 1999.

The OT stuff isn't that bad. If it's something that you're really not interested in, don't read it. This place would be pretty boring if all we talked about was the real Y2K problem. broken computer code. Some say that Andy's gold posts are OT. But are they really? What would you do IF the banks do fail? Some say that many of Homer's posts are about computer problems that have nothing to do with Y2K. But it still serves as a good example of what happens, and how people react, when any kind of computer problem occurs. Very on topic, if you ask me. Others are breaking news stories. Floyd was way OT, but again it served as a very good example. Sure, things like a war do generate far too many OT posts, but isn't that also an important part of life? Yea, some are just out there. Ignore them.

I never did like the term doomer. GI had so much more class! But since I'm concerned about possible Y2K problems, that makes me a doomer. I've learned to live with it.

You know what they say about opinions. So, as long as there are at least two people on this earth, there will be flame and insult. It's human nature. When I first came to this forum, I was pretty bad. For example, every time I read a Y2K Pro post, I'ld jump in with the stupid moron stuff, but it doesn't really prove anything. Everybody already knows that! I've been much better, since my truce offer, but I still can't resist once in a while...

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

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), November 02, 1999.

Preparing,

Outstanding post!!! Eleqouent, to the point and insults no-one. Thanks so much, it's refreshing to see someone trying to solve the problem instead of add to it. Wish I'd thought of it myself. :-)

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), November 02, 1999.

Count Vronsky.

A word of dissent: if only source-based, cut'n'paste threads appeared as Qs, I'd probably depart the forum and go back to reading Gary N., who does a good job of exactly that kind of presentation and analysis.

Can't recall who it was that made the comment here a few days ago that oppositional posts were a good occasion for analysis-sharpening, but they're right. It's not so hard to distinguish between 'different point of view' and 'truly ugly flame', and I agree w/ "preparing" about ignoring the latter.

It's truly fascinating to me (a social historian) that while we're focused here on quotidian issues of rule keeping, we are also--more interestingly--engaged in creating a collaborative work-in-progress, a documentary of y2k's unfolding. Battling w/ each other is an inescapable and valuable part of its creation, IMHO.

Homer Beanfang's posts are terrific, and I honestly miss Al-D.

-- silver ion (ag3@interlog.com), November 02, 1999.

Preparing:

Just my opinions thrown into your mix:

On #1: Personally, I've learned much from the discussions of Floyd, etc. I had nothing to contribute, but I learned something from lurking on those threads. On other topics, I may be able to glean interest from the topic and read or bypass. If I choose to read and find myself disinterested, my BACK button works fine.

On #2 and #3, I agree completely, but that's just who *I* am. Self- control and/or manners can't be dictated.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), November 02, 1999.

Anita: you said "Self-control and/or manners can't be dictated." Certainly, they cannot, especially to adults (you CAN dictate manners and TEACH self-control to children). But I am not trying to dictate those things. The heading of my post was a "challenge". Meant only for those open-minded enough to accept it.

And I agree that some of the OT posts have been VERY interesting indeed. And we wouldn't have many posts if they were all about Y2K, true. It just seems as if we have delved into a new category you could probably call off-off topic and even way way off topic. I guess those were the ones I was referring to.

Thanks everyone for your input. I have become convinced civility does still exist on this forum.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 02, 1999.

Excellent post from Preparing. However, sometimes it is difficult to decide what is on topic. I think the economic environment is on topic because the current stock market mania, record debt levels, etc, will exacerbate the effects of y2k.

-- Danny (dcox@ix.netcom.com), November 02, 1999.

Danny, I agree. General world events are probably fairly good posts, too. What I was referring to were the just weird way out there posts that would be off topic on almost any forum.

-- preparing (preparing@home.com), November 02, 1999.