How I propose to manage "The Toilet Paper Chronicles" Forum in the Futuregreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
First off, the Bad News. Apologies if you have to wade through this epistle twice.
Now, the Good News: Only those who are on TP Chronicles forum alert status will be remotely tempted to read a redundant message. The duplicate heading should be a clue to hit the delete button.
And for those who have no clue regarding the subject matter of this post, (As in The Toilet Paper Chronicles? Whats THAT?) go here, and click on the sneak preview link. It should tell you all you need to know or all you WANT to know, whichever comes first...)
[Sorry, FM, in cleaning up your post I lost the hotlink. Please repost below.]
I absolutely adore the people whove signed up for this forum and are helping me in the birthing process of this book, either through their online semi-public posts or their private emails. In fact, I revere them so much that my husband has been tempted on occasion to toss my computer out the window in the same fashion as Linda Ellerbee, when she dropped the family television from a second-story window because her husband was just too consumed with sports. Or--as the Europeans say, sport.
Now, you might ask--and rightly so--why on Earth would the husband of a future best-selling author [grin] be tempted to rid himself of the very instrument that might lead his wife to produce something of lasting historical value? (Note: I did NOT say something that might lead his wife to produce something that could enrich the family through fame and fortune. Why not? Because, quite simply, I have been as famous as I would ever choose to become. Ive had enough face-time to last a life-time. If any one of you reading this post has ever been asked to sign autographs while grocery shopping, you know what I mean. Likewise, fortune--at least in the conventional sense, i.e., the Vanderbilts, etc.,--also has its pitfalls.)
In short, the answer to the above question is quite simple: your private email messages, combined with your postings to the forum and the work associated with getting this book out the door have been so fascinating that I have quite often worked through the night and barely looked at the clock. This does not make for productive day-time functioning.
(Thank you Thomas Edison for inventing the light-bulb, but instances like these tend to be overkill.)
Accordingly, my plan for managing this forum, from here on out, will be to check in around 9:00 a.m. Eastern time, and once again in the evening, after Ive finished helping the Rug Rat with homework.
If there are urgent messages in the meantime, I hope my two volunteer Sysops/Administrators both of whom I trust, will be able to spell me.
If any of you wish to climb on board as additional Sysops (what a weird acronym but that is a story for another day) I trust the ones I have NOW to bring YOU onboard. They know who they are. Like our legendary DiETer--who always seems to know when I invoke his name in my writings--I trust that these voluntary sysops may somehow receive your message should you wish to join their ranks. How? Well, first get a password to the forum. Then, post a thread expressing your desire to become a Sysop.
Now, no matter what forum this message eventually appears on--and I suspect it will be copied and forwarded to many--Id like all of you (Alleged Doomers, Pollys, Trolls, etc.) to know that I wish the very best for you in the months and years ahead.
What an incredible experience this Y2k journey has been. Its certainly one for the history books.
:) -- FM (email@example.com), February 15, 2000
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 2000
Thanks, "Stealth Sysop" whoever you "be" [grin] for cleanin' up my mess!
Seriously--for the rest of ya--I dunno who came to my rescue but I am tempted to classify this as a "random act of kindness." Certainly I did not deserve it. I guess that's why I would classify it as "random."
Point being, my original post was a formatting mess. I was rescued. 'Nuff said. Despite the "flames" leveled at the administrators of this forum during the past few months, they have many good qualities. Having been a "forum regular" since the days when even Senator Christopher Dodd was worried about Y2k, some may argue that I know the "score."
Regardless, having expressed my gratitude, here's the link:
Start Page for "The Toilet Paper Chronicles"
-- FM (email@example.com), February 16, 2000.
biting my tongue....and it hurts....but i will keep biting
-- canthappen (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 2000.
Didn't your mama tell ya that sometimes it's BETTER to say nothing? In fact, saying NOTHING oftentimes says QUITE A BIT.
I know what you're thinking, however, as I've thought the very same myself. Marianne Michaels [using FM as a pseudonym] is shamelessly promoting a book that is very important to her right now. I asked her once on the Debunker forum why she chose to use two handles and she said something about the reasoning becoming evident eventually. I suspect I'll lose interest before that time comes.
However, put yourself in HER shoes. Virtually no one in the world is interested in purchasing a book post-Y2k on the pre-Y2k predictions of folks on the internet....save folks who MADE those predictions on the internet. For the most, Y2k has affected only a small minority of folks. They've moved on with their lives. If Marianne doesn't promote her book HERE, where else can it be promoted?
-- Anita (email@example.com), February 16, 2000.
Time for you to take a "chill pill."
Just a recommendation.
-- Diane J. Squire (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 2000.
Here we go again.
To: -- canthappen (email@example.com),
You have obviously posted with the courage of your convictions albeit without identifying yourself in a manner that might allow anyone to know who you are, precisely. That makes you a Y2k Ankle-Biter. I have coined that phrase Y2k Ankle-Biter and let no one forget it. It is not necessary at this time for you to understand what it means.
To: -- Anita (firstname.lastname@example.org)
I would not precisely place you in the Y2k Ankle-Biter category. It is tempting however, to place you in the category of those whose interest in purchasing this book concerns me not in the least.
Why? Because this book isnt JUST about Y2k.
This book is about the Y2k Story. Big difference.
Peace be with you both.
-- FM (email@example.com), February 16, 2000.
I see Diane j squirt still can't stand to have the double standard pointed out. Truth hurts you, doesn't it D? You just HAVE TO delete those that point out truth don't you.
[FM is telling the whole Y2K story--even yours troll--DNS now: 188.8.131.52 maps to ... draco.anonymizer.com--Sysop]
-- whats that i smell? (firstname.lastname@example.org?), February 16, 2000.
Actually troll, FM's post is Y2K "on topic."
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), February 16, 2000.
Well well diane the mighty has graced by "outing". Which is what I pointed out in my post which was deleted.
but....[choke]....[sputter]....I...thought....I thought there were NO vendor-type posts allowed to this forum? *gasp* can it be?!? is it.....why....yes....ITS THE DOUBLE STANDARD!
The posting guidlines say "use your own handle". If a realist posts under 2 or more handles they are "outed", but when doomers do it, its AOK! The mods must be getting kickbacks, huh.
-- y2kmorons (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 16, 2000.
[DNS now: 184.108.40.206 maps to ... draco.anonymizer.com]
-- whats that smell? (email@example.com!), February 16, 2000.
LOL. Seems I ruffled a few feathers. My apologies to Diane and Marianne for so doing.
However, where at one time Marianne [using either FM or Marianne as a handle] contributed something to this forum she now only posts references to her book. I was here before she first posted as FM, and remember her entrance to the forum. Of course I remember her entrance as Marianne Michaels as well.
There's another forum poster who has branched off and set up a forum...I think his name is Bob. The difference, IMO, between Bob and Marianne is that Bob gives the link to his forum and anyone can go there. Marianne, on the other hand, posted the following:
Heads Up. Ed Yardeni...
In this thread, Marianne mentioned "an interesting article dated February 14, 2000..." She went on to say "In this particular article...Yardeni responds..." Then she said she was linking to the article, but the link went to the TP Chronicles page.
Mara responded that she'd like to read the piece, but didn't want to get a password or follow the TP Chronicles. Marianne responded by first telling Mara that Mara had misspelled password and then stating that she will not share the article here, because it is not an article...it is a book.
So Mara the writer misspelled password and Marianne the writer stated three times that this was an article. Are segments of a book called articles? What book would that be? Mara and I may never know because neither of us have any interest in obtaining a password for Marianne's forum or following the TP Chronicles.
You might say, "If you have no interest, why did you even click on this thread?" The answer is that I was curious to see the responses that showed up against the thread. I found Canthappen doing what a lot of others are doing. He/she felt too new to the forum to respond, but I certainly wouldn't qualify as a newbie, so responded with MY opinions.
-- Anita (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 17, 2000.
Could be the DeBunker now BIFFY morphed trolls you defend so vehemently (lately) kept trashing Marriane's forum when it was not password protected? Remember when Rick Cowles had to take his Energy forum private for the same reason?
Think that might be a reason? Humm?
If you have no interest in the evolving book... why do you even respond?
Curious behavior, IMHO.
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), February 17, 2000.
Glad to see you respond while I was still online.
"Well Anita, Could be the DeBunker now BIFFY morphed trolls you defend so vehemently (lately) kept trashing Marriane's forum when it was not password protected? Remember when Rick Cowles had to take his Energy forum private for the same reason?"
I have NO IDEA who are/are not trolls, Diane. Are you suggesting that Canthappen is a DeBunker/Biffy morphed troll? I've seen several new threads posted just today by someone with that exact same handle, so my thoughts are that it's simply someone trying to share thoughts on this forum.
Yes...I remember when Rick went to a password-protected forum. I stopped visiting that forum because I didn't want to obtain a password.
"If you have no interest in the evolving book... why do you even respond?"
I thought I explained that. Do you personally approve of Marianne posting a thread in which she states that veteran posters may have an interest in an article and then find yourself at a forum where one must E-mail her for a password to VIEW the article mentioned? Many posts have been presented here from Rick's password-protected forum. They were cut and pasted so all here could view them without E- mailing Rick for a password. Can a troll harm a forum by VIEWING a post presented from a password-protected forum?
We certainly see this one differently, Diane. IMO, Marianne is STRICTLY promoting her book here, and "baiting" TB2000 posters with threads that discuss articles of interest. Of course if you want to VIEW those articles, you must E-mail her for the password. "Curious behavior, IMHO."
I found your response curious as well. What personal stake in her book or her forum have YOU that you would indulge her over longtime posters like Mara? [I won't even include myself in that one, as you've made it clear that you disapproved of posters that visited other Y2k fora.]
-- Anita (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 17, 2000.
I suggest you "ask" someone to post the whole article on this forum and be done with it.
See how simple that is Anita? (Go figure).
FM's e-mail is real, unlike others. "Ask." Bet she'd even do it.
How's the job hunt going?
-- Diane J. Squire (email@example.com), February 17, 2000.
Thanks for responding so quickly. I'm overstaying my "welcome", and I know it. Marianne already said she would NOT post the "article" here. I DO encourage anyone who visits Marianne's forum to copy and paste the "article" here. Any takers?
-- Anita (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 17, 2000.
Woops, what's up with this? If FM (MM) wants to post her forum, no problem, but if a headline implies there's going to be information, let's at least have a summary. Believe me, I understand about book promotion and the wonderful world of marketing. Usually a teaser with actual information works better than making people jump through hoops through which they don't care to leap.
-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), February 17, 2000.
I must admin as well that the whole "Look here, I have some cool stuff to gander at" (but enter your SSN first) is a serious PITA. It's like getting that Free Vacation! junkmail (but you have to sit through a "sales" seminar)
-- Ivan (email@example.com), February 17, 2000.
You idiot, I TOLD you I was using the anonymizer. So you "out" me as using it? What a prize package you are.
You think the debunkies own it? It's a free public service. ANYONE can use it. It existed long before those morons existed, and it'll exist for a long time after this rat hole is abandoned by all but the most brainwarped.
Why don't you examine some more contrails for a CLUE??? ANYONE who doesn't want you turkies doing the ol' buring turd in a paper bag on the front step routine is using the anonymizer.
And since you've proven yourselves a bitter vindictive lot of thugs, the group is growing.
Pretty soon even your friends will be using it. In fact, rumor has it that some of them already are. They may LIKE you, but even THEY know better than to TRUST you.
Enjoy the paranoid world you created for yourself, moron.
Oh, and don't forget to tell the world that I'm using the anonymizer again, idiot.
-- Sysop Outer! (SysopOuter@The.Truth), February 17, 2000.
Here I am, off this forum all day--busy with family stuff--just decided to check in to see if the flames had stopped and what do I see?
DOUBLE the number of responses from last night at about this same time. (And here I promised myself I was gonna hit the sack early. [g])
Well, I haven't completely read through the past few responses, and will wait to post until I have had an opportunity to properly do so.
For tonight at least, a major winter storm is headed into my area, and my DH--prior to going out and gathering wood for the fireplace said to me the following (and this could be a real "belly-laugh" for anyone whose spouses said "Why bother to prepare for Y2k?"):
"I guess I'd better go out and bring some wood in, just in case we have a power outage."
ROTFL! He wouldn't HAVE any wood, had I not bothered to buy a cord last summer with the help of those on this forum who guided me on how to purchase one and not get ripped off in the process! ROTFL!
I shall respond "on topic" soon. For now, it's late, I'm tired and off to sleep.
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 17, 2000.
I DO encourage anyone who visits Marianne's forum to copy and paste the "article" here. Any takers?
Here you go:
All Too Human: Four bright Wall Street economists who got it wrong
By Gene Epstein
02/14/2000 If any of us really knew what lay ahead, why would we be sharing that priceless information with anyone else?" economist Gary Shilling asked me rhetorically. "We'd be making so much money, we wouldn't know what to do with it." The 62-year prognosticator uttered this candid confession in response to the news that he'd just been tagged by an impartial panel of Barron's judges as richly deserving of this year's Stopped Clock Award for Maintaining a Gloomy Outlook. In fact, the head of the Springfield, New Jersey-based A. Gary Shilling & Co. would have merited this award in many other years. Nor was Shilling the only dismal scientist to receive recognition last week for egg-on-your-face forecasting. Honorable mention in the stopped-clock category went to economist David Levy of the Levy Institute in Mount Kisco, New York.
And in related categories, the Chicken Little Statuette for Distinguished Achievement in Catastrophic Thinking was copped by chief global economist Ed Yardeni of Deutsche Banc Securities in New York, while a special Rabbit's Foot Plaque for Unusual Luck in Being Right for the Wrong Reason was awarded to economist Ed Hyman of the New York- based consulting firm International Strategy & Investment.
Let it be said at the outset that all four unhappy recipients have said a lot of smart things in their time about the economic outlook. But as Leon Trotsky once said in a completely different context, "Everyone has a right to be wrong, but Comrade X abuses the privilege." In their vaunted position as forecasters, this Gang of Four have surely abused the privilege to which the great Communist leader was referring, and their honest mistakes should not go unpunished by a free capitalist press.
Over a long career, Gary Shilling is used to suffering ridicule, or worse, for his perennially bearish beliefs. According to him, he got "fired twice" by Merrill Lynch CEO Donald Regan (later, Ronald Reagan's Treasury Secretary) for not being sufficiently bullish on America. By his account, he lost his job as Merrill's chief economist in 1971 after he correctly anticipated the 1970 recession. He then fled to White Weld, where he also called the '74 downturn, but got dumped again in '78 on Regan's orders when Merrill acquired White Weld. Comments Shilling: "A lot of economists never forecast recession because it can be very detrimental to their job security."
As for ridicule, The Wall Street Journal's semiannual summaries of Street economists' forecasts abound in jibes against Shilling's latest serving of pessimism. The most egregious insult occurred in the July 5, 1990, roundup, which included the one-liner: "Mr. Shilling now has predicted four of the past zero recessions," this after the economist was quoted as saying that a recession "may already have started."
But this time the joke was on the Journal. The record shows that the 199091 recession had begun that very month, and Shilling and David Levy were among the few to have gotten that right. But a stopped clock is right only twice a day. And over the course of the ensuing decade, while Levy and Shilling weren't always predicting recession, they did it often enough to merit the mild sobriquet Drs. Dour and Dire. And that's even if you forgot the times Levy and Shilling anticipated slowdowns in growth that never materialized. The boom of the past four years has been especially unkind to them. And in 1999 they missed by miles, with both again forecasting recession for a year that came in with yet another growth rate of better than 4%. Looking back, the 45-year-old Levy believes he seriously underestimated the power of the stock market to lift the economy. And since he doesn't think he can forecast the market, his outlook for 2000 remains uncertain. But Shilling is less repentant, still believing that recession will finally strike this year, based on his expectation of a market correction. Besides, he demands to know, "On what U.S. exchange is gross domestic product being traded anyway?"
For sure, Street economists are mainly supposed to earn their keep by forecasting interest rates, which are traded on U.S. exchanges. But their GDP forecasts usually serve as an indispensable means toward that end, which brings us to ISI chief economist Ed Hyman. The 54-year-old Hyman maintained a reputation for a long time as a crack forecaster of the long bond-which may be one reason why, for an astonishing 20 years running, he's been chosen as best economist in the annual Institutional Investor poll. (Other reasons: The excellence of the information he regularly provides, and the brilliance of his partner, Nancy Lazar.) But last year Hyman stumbled badly, missing entirely the major backup in rates and plunge in bond prices. Throughout this period, ISI has almost consistently underestimated the strength of the economy, sounding the repeated note that growth would moderate. And since slow growth normally means steady interest rates, this mistaken view proved indispensable in permitting Hyman to accurately forecast low rates on the long bond. For what saved the day was that inflation moderated while economic growth refused to follow suit. As the lone voice in the economic wilderness calling for a Y2K-sparked recession this year, Ed Yardeni proved outrageously wrong. Since as matters turned out, the only shocking thing about Y2K was how little disruption it caused.
Says Yardeni, who reaches 50 this year: "I drove a long way down a one- way street, getting a little too much into the crusade of the whole thing, even to the point of ignoring the [information- technology] professionals who in my own surveys were telling me their companies were well-prepared. But you gotta learn from your mistakes, and I'm working on it." Well, okay.
-- (email@example.com), February 20, 2000.
Good evening all,
Having just completed several days devoted to family stuff, (which is the most important thing in life--as most of you know) Im back briefly with a response to some, if not all of the above posts.
Where at one time Marianne [using either FM or Marianne as a handle] contributed something to this forum she now only posts references to her book...There's another forum poster who has branched off and set up a forum...I think his name is Bob. The difference, IMO, between Bob and Marianne is that Bob gives the link to his forum and anyone can go there.
Bob is the Bob from Uncle Bobs Bunker. Not a bad place to check into these days,--with the exception of the lightning background image which is a bit scary [grin]--but I know he is up to receiving suggestions for improvement and you are correct in assuming that anyone can go there.
As for my contributions to this forum, I think most forum old-timers know I was here during the most critical period of the U.S. Senate Hearings, the various releases of the GAO reports, the Y2k Community Conversations period, etc., -in short--the most weighty period of government dissemination of information with regard to Y2k. Because I number among this forums elders I could be deluded in thinking there are many people who might be interested in what choose to post. I always reserve the right to be wrong.
It is true that anyone can go to my forum, after applying for a password.
Why did I not choose to post the Yardeni article here? A simple explanation is that it was not available via the World Wide Web when I posted a link to it. In other words, I had to pay money out of my own pocket to view it. According to copyright law as I understand it, I have no wish to have my derriere handed to me as a result of posting something to this forum that I have reason to believe is not available on the Worldwide Web.
Mara, you have a point. Perhaps I should have posted a synopsis. In a sense, however--at least with regard to this particular article, --the headline WAS the synopsis. Admittedly, I could have gone further. Accordingly, I am more than willing to enlist you as a volunteer synopsis extractor for future articles if you are willing to assume the role. Send me an email if that is the case. Ill send you articles, and you can write the synopsis and post them on this forum. The same offer holds true for anyone else who might wish to assist in such an endeavor.
Why did I choose to password-protect my forum?
A simple answer:
All anyone with a sense of history has to do, is take a serious look at what this forum became from approximately September of 1999 forward. That history is available in the archives of this forum.
Equally important, however, is to look at what happened to the various Y2k Debunking forums, immediate after the rollover (or--as Alan Greenspan chose to phrase same--the Century Date Change.). That should be explanation enough, with regard to password protection.
And now, a P.S., I have noted that someone (anonymously) indeed posted the Yardeni quote, along with the article in which it appeared. As far as that particular posting is concerned, I have no control. As I understand it, any potential copyright issues would have to be resolved between the poster of that particular article and Barrons.
-- FM (firstname.lastname@example.org), February 21, 2000.
Uh,...a question for the sysops regarding this thread:
I've been checking in--and from the original 16+ responses, it now reads 3 responses, even though the content has not changed.
I'm wondering if this is something peculiar with the Greenspun software, that I might be interested in knowing, considering the TPChronicles forum is hosted on same?
-- FM (email@example.com), February 24, 2000.
Posted by (220.127.116.11) Marianne on January 29, 2000 at 22:12:43:
In Reply to: Catch this from your Doom Zombie Fans' Favorite Pit ?????? posted by cpr on January 29, 2000 at 21:07:13:
Give it a rest, cpr. TB2000 has never been my "Favorite Pit." In fact, I don't HAVE a "Favorite Pit."
-- Eye Spy (EyeSpy@eyespyyy.xcom), February 24, 2000.