[apologies about possible formatting irregularities]

After following, and sometimes posting upon, this forum, I think the following things need to be said:

If anyone comes on here with reported information that "can't immediately be documented" REGARDLESS of impeccable credentials, or contrarily some irrelevant information is impugned about them that has nothing to do with the FACTS which others use to personally discredit them immediately -- they are ripped to shreds. "Oh, sorry for macheteing you to pieces, but we weren't sure if you were 'for real' or not. There, there; here's your head and arms and legs and tongue and torso. Go sow yourself back together and you'll be alright. But don't still expect us to believe you."

And 99 times out of 100 the PERSON will be attacked PERSONALLY -- and often viciously -- which conveniently takes the emphasis off of the FACTS AT HAND. Or else instead of presenting any in return, we are offered, for instance, a pious response consisting of a single tawdry word not unlike what's scribbled on bathroom walls by schoolboy's that "for sure settles things" in retort to what may well be described as a description of the brewing of a possible international oil crisis. My original query was, "who are these people?" (i.e., who seem to lead a brigade of like-minded "hoity toities" to besmear and besmirch people's reputations that undermine's the representation of THE FACTS?). Yes, it's OK to disagree, sometimes even adamently. But I've seen some very polite exchanges where the people doing so knew how to conduct themselves respectfully. In fact, it HELPS clarify things often.

Considering the scope, impact, and reputation of this forum, is it too imaginative to assume that special interest fomenters hiding behind dot.com surnames just like to sport trouble? (No insult intended to those with catchy addresses donning them for fun which has become as much an internet benchmark as everthing else computer related.) And the same ad hominum outcome always usually results: forget about the SUBJECT MATTER at hand and the FACTS, even though many, many more contributors with brilliant analyses, credentials, and years of experience are saying the very same things and have backed up those "insignificants" who, "having not been here long enough to 'really count' (--were inferringly 'born yesterday')", are detracted upon.

There have been, and continue to be, on target discourses, revelations and analyses -- in particular, concerning the ominous worldwide situation regarding OIL. Please continue to present the FACTS and not let anyone or anything discredit the bearers of them by being allowed to take our eyes off of them. If they just like to cause discord and ill will (either with this, or any other Y2K related topic) and have nothing factually substantial to offer without tearing down those whom they disagree with, then perhaps some bogus address such as: ~factattackersanonymous@noconspiracyatall.closetcommunist~ may be where they'll find some compatible friends under a new, unfamiliar epithet.

-- Patrick Lastella (Lastella1@aol.com), January 21, 2000

Answers

um Patrick, while you are stitching, the word is sew. The other "sow" refers to "as you shall reap"...

Some of the people whose credentials you are challenging have been around here taking the time to make contributions for a long while.

This may be one of those issues where it is ok for long time members to rip one another a new one, but ranks are closed when a new comer weighs in. If you want to share your opinion, you might want to consider another approach. Diatribes are a sure target for scorn and derision.

Mine is not a .com surname.

-- Nancy (wellsnl@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Patrick,

Great post! I made a response on this forum yesterday regarding Jay Abshier's one-word argument against problems in the oil industry and was roundly denounced, insulted and generally told that I had my head up my ass on the debunkers forum. I very politely tried to explain my position over there to folks like cpr and Paul Davis and again had my head handed to me.

I am a sales professional in the IT industry and therefore have a thick skin. I came away from the whole experience with a profound sense of disappointment. How exactly is shouting someone down by questioning their sanity and calling them all manner of offensive names considered a "discussion"?

I fear that this tendency is going to prevent many people who may have something valuable to contribute from joining the discourse.

Jimmy

-- Jimmy Splinters (inthe@dark.com), January 21, 2000.

For my weekend abasement, may I ask where to find that detractors forum?

-- Redeye in Ohio (cannot@work.com), January 21, 2000.

Patrick-- I agree wholeheartedly. If you were having a face to face debate with someone, and disagreeded with them, you wouldn't start attacking them personally(hopefully). Also, i am much more interested in the intelligence and thought that goes into a post than i am about spelling or grammmar.Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message or how it's presented.

-- dory (crtwheel@eburg.com), January 21, 2000.

Dory,

Very well said.

-- Dee (T1Colt556@aol.com), January 21, 2000.

Red Eye,

I don't know how to do those fancy links, but the address of the "Y2K Debunked!" forum is: http://www.stand77.com/wwwboard/board.html

Hope y'all got a thick skin. You'll need it there if you have the audacity to ask a question or profess ignorance about ANY topic.

Jimmy

-- Jimmy Splinters (inthe@dark.com), January 21, 2000.

Ho Patrick, Thou of golden fingertips justaposed on precise keys! In other words, I totally agree with all you said herein.

Is there any way to find the punk-teen types hangin around here and shoo them away? In other words, I think Patrick's "school boys writing on walls" was maybe too kind!

l0ve, gl0ria s0metimes l0ve is t0ugh but it is never obn0xious.

-- (watkins@dtc.net), January 21, 2000.

Jimmy, took me about two minutes to see what you meant. That looks like a whole lot more noise-to-signal ratio than I have time or energy to sort through. Life's just too darn short.

-- Redeye in Ohio (cannot@work.com), January 21, 2000.

yeah...for a "mop-up", it sure looks messy over rthere...

-- (@ .), January 21, 2000.

Great post Patrick! I share your concerns about the lack of civility in here lately. Especially with the Oil issue so badly clouded over and wth little hard info (other than price shock headlines) to work with.

As I have said repeatedly, I profess no particular expertise. Yet, my 25 years in the media has taught me the value of being a careful observer. There appears to be a very nasty razor edge to this forum lately, and I don't see where that helps anybody or improves the depth and quality of the debate. True, we need to fire a few verbal rounds at trolls and other nasties...that is to be expected. But... please...lets consider making a renewed effort to be at least civil amongst ourselves, minimize hysteria, and raise the bar on factual information to new levels of credibility.

Attacking each other won't improve our circumstances or keep the flaming idiot trolls off our doorstep. Think about it. Thanks!

-- Irving (irvingf@myremarq.com), January 21, 2000.

Great post Patrick ! I agree with you 100%.

The reason this forum gets nasty "razor blade" attacks is that Y2K was supposed to be over, and it ain't. And that is a PROBLEM, for many vested interests, here and abroad.

Take care. Good thinking Patrick.

-- George (jvilches@sminter.com.ar), January 21, 2000.

LOL what a softee!

-- Hokie (Hokie_@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Vicious personal attacks are not exclusive to either side in the debate.

I would like to see FACTS that prove or disprove whether Y2k is at fault with refinery failures and natural gas explosions. If not FACTS, at least some reasonable scenarios. So far, this forum is lacking either.

-- Mikey2k (mikey2k@he.wont.eat.it), January 21, 2000.