After much agonizing over alternatives, we have decided to move the TimeBombY2000 forum from the Greenspun site at MIT to this new home on the ezBoard site. Professor Greenspun's technology was absolutely the best-in-class when we began in late 1997, and it still has some features that are unmatched elsewhere -- but it also had a limited ability to block the trolls and spammers who occasionally disrupted the forum. Rather than making the Greenspun forum password-protected, we decided to move to a new ezBoard TimeBomb 2000 forum. It's one of several discussion forums that are attached to my web site.

For many people, the original "focus" of Y2K discussions has changed; some are interested in tracking and documenting post-Y2K glitches (e.g., the various problems that may or may not occur on Feb 29), while others have shifted to a broader look at the impact of technology (and technological glitches) on society. Still others are discussing political subjects, or whatever else interests them.

The new forum is set up so that anyone can lurk without registering or revealing their identity. But to post a message, you must register with the ezBoard system. There is no "approval" required, but you must supply a user-name and email address; thus, it's reasonably "open", but does not cater to completely anonymous postings of messages.

I'm expecting everyone to remain reasonably civil and well-behaved, but I'm also willing to tolerate heated, raucous debates. I'll delete messages that contain pornography, excessive obscenity, or racist or slanderous/libelous attacks -- as well as sales pitches, advertisements, etc. We'll warn offenders to stop making such posts, and then take advantage of ezBoard's features to block repeated offenders. A handful of trolls and spammers who have made persistent, aggressive efforts to disrupt this forum will be blocked, to whatever extent we're capable of doing so, from making any postings of any kind on the new forum.

We intend to leave the current Greenspun forum intact, but will "freeze" it to prevent new threads from being posted. The existing collection of some 360,000 messages that have accumulated over the past 26+ months is a valuable archive for researchers and others.

I'd like to add my own personal thanks to all of the sysops and forum moderators who have worked so hard for the past two years to keep things reasonably civil and orderly -- with nothing more than an occasional "thanks" as compensation. Diane Squire took much of the heat through her visibility; had I known that I was going to be subjecting her to so much public abuse back in May 1999, I doubt that I would have had the heart to ask her to take over for me. But in addition, another half-dozen sysops have worked just as hard during this period -- often to the detriment of their family life, their sleep, and their jobs. I don't think that any of us expected Y2K to be such an emotionally polarizing event, and all of these folks have made an enormous effort to keep it from being any worse than it was.

In any case ... life goes on. We managed to get through the Feb 29/Mar 1 leap-year rollover without very many significant problems -- and for several of the sysops, and a lot of forum lurkers, it's time to get back to their "regular" lives. But for everyone who still wants to keep watch on Y2K events, and to discuss various aspects of it, the new forum awaits you.



-- Ed Yourdon (, March 02, 2000


Good job Ed. Thank you.

-- Dee (, March 02, 2000.

Thanks once again, Ed. Once the new site lets me register, I'll be there under a new name.

-- Jon Johnson (NARNIA4@USA.NET), March 02, 2000.

Thanks, Ed, for doing this. It will be SO refreshing to have no crazy interruptions from some of the old problem posters, the most notorious having really given Diane and all of us a real sense of frustration.

Looking forward to a civil but interesting group of contributors continue in this eclectic "community."

-- Elaine Seavey (, March 02, 2000.

Thanks Ed, I'm glad to see these changes.
Cya at EZBoard.

-- spider (, March 02, 2000.

Also your links to the images on the new
board are bad. Need to check it out.

-- spider (, March 02, 2000.


You wrote:

"I don't think that any of us expected Y2K to be such an emotionally polarizing event.."

Well I hear THAT.

I look forward to less bile, more smiles and a continued opportunity to keep in touch with some of the nicer folk who have inhabited this board all these many months.



-- FM (, March 02, 2000.

Good decision Ed. It'll be nice eliminating the nutcase wackos like Lady Lamebrain.

-- haha (, March 02, 2000.

Thanks, Ed. Kudos to you for your efforts! I'll be changing my "handle" ... "ladybuckeye_59" is too long. ):

-- (, March 02, 2000.


I think that I am still seeing posts today subsequent to yours. My only question is when is this forum being frozen? Is the date and time set?

I am not asking to push you or to argue, just to have a better idea when to be where! Already registered at the new place, btw.


-- redeye in ohio (, March 02, 2000.

When will you be shutting down "this" MIT forum?

-- kritter (, March 02, 2000.

Good Deal. Adios to Y2K Pro and company...

-- (@ .), March 02, 2000.

Thanks Ed,

There is one category of use for the bulletin board you did not mention. The bulletin board serves as a reference for the news stories that the national media is loathe to cover. It is an avenue for freedom of expression for some who feel that the national media does not serve them well.

-- Rick (, March 02, 2000.

Ed, you've been a real peach. Thanks for sticking with us throughout all of this craziness. Thanks for the new forum. Thank you to Diane (who I hope will continue on for this wild ride!), and many thanks to the other sysops too numerous to mention , past, present and future.


-- Alice (, March 02, 2000.

Hey Ed!

I recieved this email this morning from a missionary friend in Belgium who works with a "member of Parliment" (mp) from Moldava. Moldava has just run out of natural gas from Russia. No heat. Nothing to cook with. This post is legitimate. Most of you know me and my email is real.

************************]Dear friends,

Moldovans consider March 1st to be the first day of the spring. It is good to see the signs of revival in the nature and I think our people can find in God's creation more hope and comfort than in our government. As many of you probably heard, since last Friday (Feb. 25) Moldova is not receiving any natural gas from Russia. For the last few days the country was using up the gas that was left in the pipeline and this morning it all ran out. Since most people cook their food on gas stoves, you can imagine how difficult it is now to meet the most basic human needs. Also, the mayor announced that the city can no longer afford to provide heating in the apartments. We are fortunate that we still have electricity. Tomorrow the government will come to the Parliament to give a report on what they are doing in order to solve this critical situation. Our hope and prayers are that Moldovan people will start receiving gas as soon as possible. On the other hand there is still a conflict between the powers in Moldova. The Parliament dos not have and is not likely to form a governing majority. That means that the government does not have political support, which will make it very difficult to pass the budget.

I would like you ask you to keep us in your prayers. Please, pray for the government, that they could make the necessary agreements with Russia concerning natural gas. Also, pray for the Members of Parliament, that they would find consensus in the midst of party differences. Pray for our people who have lost all hope that things will ever improve.

Yours in Christ,

Valeriu Ghiletchi, M.P.

-- JoseMiami (, March 02, 2000.

Thank you, Ed. Now the thousand cuts have a better bandaid.

-- Normally (, March 02, 2000.

Many, many thanks to Ed, and to all of the sysopos, named and otherwise!


-- Jerry B (, March 02, 2000.

I have registered and have visited the new board. It is off to a good start. Thanks to Mr. Youdon for all his efforts and thanks to all the Sysops also. I am sorry for all the verbal abuse you have suffered but unfortunately this world is full of people that have no class and no manners and who are more than willing to demonstrate that fact.

-- Nadine Zint (, March 02, 2000.

Sorry - should read "Mr. Yourdon" - typographical error.

-- Nadine Zint (, March 02, 2000.

Thank you Ed for continuing to carry the "open discussions" tourch! (As the TimeBomb morphs).

The TBY2K Sysop team--both the visible and the invisible members--will assist with the transition.




Leavin... On A Jet Plane... Dont Know When Ill Be Back Again...
-- Diane J. Squire (, March 01, 2000

Musings on the art of transitioning from Faculty to Emeritus Sysop/ moderator
-- Chuck, a night driver (, February 22, 2000


-- Diane J. Squire (, March 02, 2000.

Just completed the registration on the new site. How surprising (Not!) to find that Y2K Pro is already there, and spewing hateful posts. I hope the new site will allow for quick and permanent trash will certainly be put to the test.

-- (, March 02, 2000.


I take it the "freeze" you speak of is now in place, and there will be no more posts to this site after this one?


-- Shimoda (, March 02, 2000.

Out of courtesy to my employer (who knows I do this) anonymity is still appropriate for me. So I'll be there, but I'll be lurking.

-- bw (homoe@puget.sound), March 02, 2000.

That's HOME@Puget.Sound, not HOMOE. Drat these cookie things.

-- bw (home@puget.sound), March 02, 2000.

Well, Ed, congrats on new board, just wish I could get in. Just spent 1/2 hour or so getting error messages. I can neither create a local account, or a global one, or get any forgotten password I might have had before. I have no idea if this is operator error on my part, or what. would prefer to not have to get another email address. Any hints or clues? thanks!

-- zog (, March 02, 2000.


The direct URL is...


It is also now linked under the "About" message here.


-- Diane J. Squire (, March 02, 2000.

Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon. Thank You Ed Yourdon.

Sorry, don't know how to do the kewl stuff (colors, graphics, fonts) that the other kids do. This is the best I could come up with. Hope it comes out right. See ya at the other place.


-- Lurkess (Lurkess@Lurking.XNet), March 02, 2000.

When I first posted on this forum, well over a year ago, I predicted that there would be no significant impact to Y2K, and despite all of the hand wringing, that it would end with a whimper rather than a bang. Another of my predictions, that this board would simply wink out of existence, does not appear to have come true  at least not yet. Instead we are left with a freeze frame to document one of the greatest public hysterias since Orson Wells convinced New England that Martian invaders were on a rampage.

Well Ed, I wont comment on any of your predictions, reality has said it all. As for your puzzlement, we clashed in an interested debate last March where I told you exactly WHY you would be wrong, but you refused to reexamine your assumptions. Luckily its never too late to question I Know what I Know.

I do have to hand it to you though  from a marketing and communications point of view, what you did was raging success. This project will stand for a long time as a demonstration of both the power, and the dangers, of the Internet.

-- Computer Pro (, March 02, 2000.

What a shame.

We have let the spammers win. They have thrown us out of our home.

I am very upset as I take my privacy very seriously, having had my identity stolen last year. And I do not want to receive spam from unsavory characters who troll BB's for e-mail addresses to sell.

You have to know that all the real e-mail addresses on the new board will be stolen and those of us who post will be subjected to new spam.

I thank Ed for not shutting down completely, but it is a sad day when the preverts, the deviants win, and we all have to settle for something less than we really want.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 02, 2000.

Hi Ed,

Whatta guy! Thank you so much -- for TB2K as well as for providing us with a new home. I'll see you there!

-- eve (, March 02, 2000.

I was one of the original posters when this board was started and I find it fitting that I post now. I want to give Ed and the sysops a big hug for all of their hard work. I have only been lurking these past few months but I will go and check out the new board.

Like many I have felt that this was like "family" here and the regular posters were "friends" that I had never met face-to-face. As we all know families and friends change over time, but I certainly appreciate the posts from all of you and look forward to more of the same.

Thanks again, Ed and gang.

-- Beckie (, March 02, 2000.

Dear FutureShock, as you go through the logon proces you can specify that your e-mail remain private. i have to trust the integrity of the folk at ezBoard.


-- Chuck, a night driver (, March 02, 2000.

Well, I tried to register and was informed that I am BANNED from registering. How very interesting.

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

I'm sure that's a mistake, Flint. (Unless you were banned from some ezboard previously...was that you causing trouble on the "In 25 words or Less" forum the other day?) ;-) Sysops?

-- kritter (, March 02, 2000.

Thanks so much for all you've done, Ed.

I guess all good things must come to an end, and I have a feeling of deep poignnancy.

The above, of course, is assuming that the new board doesn't operate pretty much as it already has.

I hope that my posts have not offended anyone; if so, please forgive me.

Thank you, Diane, and all the other Sysops. for your hard work. I guess I knew something would have to be done to avoid the destructive personalities.

-- Connie (, March 02, 2000.

FLINT: Please let me know via e-mail whether in fact you continue to be unable to logon. Thank you.

With respect,

-- Dave Walden (, March 02, 2000.

Ed, and all other fine folks here, thanks for the wonderful forum experience.

I doubt if I'll be participating much anymore. I was getting pretty sick of the censorship already, and I suppose it will only be worse now.

My personal opinion is that we only have to read whatever posts we want to, and if we are so opinionated that we can't stand to read others' opinions, or any news articles, which go against our preconceived dogma, well, I guess that's our (your) right.


Jumpoff Joe

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (, March 02, 2000.

Oh, I almost forgot. I have to get the last word, I guess. All you doomies can read this or not; if it "offends" you, I'm SO, SO, SO sorry! This is a letter I just received from one of those lying cheating, commie type organizations--you know, the ones who are trying to cover up the fact that we are all toast, society as we KNEW it is over, there is no gas, everyone is just waiting to kill me and my family to steal my food, etc. She's with NERC, and if you haven't figured out what NERC is yet, I guess it really doesn't matter...

Sorry I couldn't open the attachment, but my computer hasn't been able to read Acrobat formatted stuff since a couple of months ago.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Attached in Acrobat 4.0 is a press release from the North American Electric Reliability Council. It is also posted on the NERC web site:

The electric industry of North America successfully moved through the year 2000 (Y2k) leap date period with no reports of anomalies affecting electricity production, transmission, or delivery. "With the very successful New Year's rollover and now the leap date period, the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) has completed its coordination of the electric industry's Y2k activity," says Michehl R. Gent, President of NERC. "The only remaining job is to prepare a final report on the Y2k project's lessons learned that could be applied to other industry areas such as critical infrastructure protection," he adds.


Heather Gibbs

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (, March 02, 2000.

Well I registered, got my validation number, filled out the info and it came up you are registered. I tried to post and it comes up you must register to post.

I went to Help in logging on and it says web tv users may have problems.

I guess I won't be able to participate in the new forum and go back to lurking mode.

I enjoyed participating in this forum and will miss continuing to do so.

Thank you to the folks who have answered my posts.

Take care.

-- Lucy (, March 02, 2000.

All, Ed Yourdon said,

"But to post a message, you must register with the ezBoard system. There is no "approval" required, but you must supply a user-name and email address; thus, it's reasonably "open", but does not cater to completely anonymous postings of messages."

In addition to wishing to remain anonymous, I seriously regret "registering" on One List as I continue to get ads for home loans, porn, etc. that I have no desire for.

I have greatly appreciated some of the insights I have gained on this forum and wish you all the best. It is unfortunate that the spammers won.



-- Someone (, March 02, 2000.

Zog, it takes a while to get your confirmation email from EZboard to get your userID and password. Be patient everyone.

Flint, it must be a mistake that you were banned.

I REALLY hope the sysops will not ban civilized dissenting people. Even Y2Kpro. The only people that should be banned IMO are the spammers such as Ladylogic. Everyone else should be allowd, since the sysops still have the ability to moderate and delete. The diversity of opinions and views is what made this forum so successful and interesting.

I'm not interested in a "doomer", one view forum, and I understand that Ed isn't either. I hope the sysops will keep this in mind.

-- Chris (@#$, March 02, 2000.


I had the same registration problems other did until I changed my user name from "William J. Schenker, MD" to "William J Schenker MD" ---- REMEMBER: NEVER TRUST A COMPUTER!!!!!>/b>


-- William J. Schenker, MD (, March 02, 2000.



-- William J. Schenker, MD (, March 02, 2000.

I second the motion. Other than those who intentionally disrupt the forum or harrass (and I mean obvious, mean spirited harrassment, not politically correct, s/he damaged my self esteem harrass) other posters, I don't want to see any opinions excluded. I too am willing to listen to even Y2KPro on the off chance that s/he may have something sensible to say. (Then I can brag about "being there" when it happened. ;-) ). Certainly I count Flint as a valid contributer who helped present an opposing point of view in a reasonable manner.

A debate requires both sides of the argument. After being active in 2nd amendment issues for years, I abhor any attempt to stifle any who contribute a valid line of reasoning. I will not become "The Enemy", nor will I ever condone their tactics. Even if used by those I generally agree with.

I assume that Flint and those whose contributions to the debate are of equal calibur will be welcome at the new forum.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), March 02, 2000.

Lucy: If you registered, you can post. When the thing comes up to enter a post, there is a big warning in red saying you must be registered, but right above it is a place to enter your name and pw. The warning is just there to tell you that your post won't go through unless you are a registered user. Just fill out the various fields and ignore the warning.

-- Little Pig (, March 02, 2000.

I'm lost new board won't take me :-(

-- && (&&@&&.&), March 02, 2000.

No luck, still banned. I'm trying to register as a local user, but each time I get a screen that says:


you are banned.

Since Chuck is listed as a sysop, I asked him why. He said it wasn't up to him, it was up to Ed Yourdon. I asked Ed Yourdon and he said it wasn't up to him, it was up to the sysops! Ed said "I gather that you had sufficiently annoyed one of the old-forum sysops that it caused you to be put on the list of "persona non gratis"

This is news to me. Apparently the desire for "heated, raucous debate" has some fairly strict limits, and the "no approval required" has some exceptions.

Or maybe there's a bug in the EZBOARD software?

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

Hey Flint,

Remember this?

-- Yes, (I'm@sysop.dealwithit), March 02, 2000.

Little Pig - I did fill in all the fields and when I hit add reply it would come up as an error with slot to enter my user name and pw. Which I did and it still won't accept.

I think it may have something to do with my cookies being disabled and with web tv there is no way I can enable them.

Don't really know how they became disabled but I contacted web tv by e mail and they usually answer within 24 hours.

I hope there is something they can do otherwise I will be doomed to just lurk. :)

-- Lucy (, March 02, 2000.

Ah. So I am not banned for violating forum guidelines at any time or in any manner. I am banned for expressing the *wrong opinion*!

Why am I not surprised?

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

So Mr./Mrs./Ms. Sysop,

You're saying Flint is banned for the following post on another board:

"What reasonable participants? None of these fora exist to discover the truth, they exist to create and promulgate one. Admit it, your underlying motivation was the same as mine -- to kick the anthill and watch the reactions. And you also recognized that reasonable analysis was the most effective boot to kick with. The CPR screaming attacks, for all they preached a different doctrine, were not qualitatively different from the TB2K approach in general.

But hell, you and I chimed in at least partially to feel superior in our own idiosyncratic way. It was fun. Surely we harbored no delusions of making converts."

Did you notice that the first part was aimed both at TB2000 *AND* at the Debunker boards?

Do you think Flint's the only person who's "kicked the anthill" at times?

Do you plan to ban anyone who has used the word "SHEEPLE" for their feeling of arrogant superiority to 99.9% of the American public?

Please rethink this. It's a very, very bad decision.


-- RC (, March 02, 2000.

Thanks SO much Ed, Diane, Phil & all of your other sysops! See you all in the new home!

-- Sheri (, March 02, 2000.

No, Flint, you were not 'banned' because of an opposing opinion. There are several who hold opinions not my own whom I hope to see on the new forum.

You were banned because you enjoyed "kicking the anthill"... You admit you participated in this forum, not so much because you were impassioned by your point of view, but because you enjoy disruption.

Tell me...did you also pick the wings off flies when you were a child? Do you still do it for sport?

There *are* plenty of places to play on the Internet, many of which actively encourage your self admitted 'sport'. It shouldn't be too hard to find one.

-- Flint (You@re still.whining), March 02, 2000.


Apparently my crime is being *honest* about my motivations. Extremely interesting that honesty is banned. Despite all the things Yourdon warned against when he started this thread, it turns out that the worst crime is to express (in a civil manner) a *disapproved* opinion.

This is supposed to be *exactly* why the new forum was created in the first place -- so that a wide variety of opinions could be expressed without fear of spam, obscenity, or sales pitches. And the very first thing that gets eliminated is *disagreement*!

Ordinarily, one would expect Ed Yourdon to become upset that his new forum has been chopped off at the knees on the very first day. Interesting that he wrings his hands and says, Gee, sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it. Honest Injun!

Hey, I know from experience that the worst thing about being wrong is someone telling you you're wrong, and later saying I told you so. But is it better to learn from your mistakes and do better next time, or is it better to make sure you never have to listen to those people? Yourdon's answer is implicit already.

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

Mr. Yourdon:

I, for one, am very appreciative that you have found an alternative that still allows unregistered lurkers. Some people may still have a limited opportunity to take a peek at this forum from work. I was in this catagory until mid-February, and I would have been very disappointed if the miscreants had been able to deny me access to this forum.

I had posted a suggestion earlier that I hoped would incorporate Adam Smiths' "invisible hand" and utilize free market pressures. You were kind enough to point out the shortcomings of this idea, and remind me of the wider arena that this board operates in. It was sure a "Doh!" to me and a pause to more carefully consider my posts, now that I have that freedom and privilege.

In conclusion, sure glad not to be "cyber" homeless, because this site is fascinating!!

Merci beaucoup !!

PS: Lucy: I'm sure there will be some growing pains, be patient, I'd give you odds that your problem will be solved and there will be many volunteer to help you.

-- JCC (, March 02, 2000.

hozzit work when I want to change my handle and "email address" to tie in with subject I post? I also don't feel comfortable with giving email adress. Junk mail is one thing, expressing an opinion for eternity cyberspace, with a trace back to my real email address, is another. Somehow lurking only mode does not have the same appeal. My opinion only. I guess it had to be done. I saw some attacks. Thanks to a lot of past posters. Please remember that sometimes, some even small good things you do, can make a difference in the life of someone else. Speed!

-- Name (, March 02, 2000.

crybaby Flint

-- Johnny (, March 02, 2000.

Please note that when you sign in ("register") with ezboard, you can choose to keep your e-mail address private so that it does not show on the board. ezboard also states it will not send you mail without your permission. Here are a few comments from familiar names:


Great to be here. Feel like I just graduated from high school (oh, to only be that young again).

Once more, Ed, thanks so much. Know it'll be a super board. See a lot of great folks are here already


It's good to see so many friends!

Not unlike my early spring garden, my favorite 'lovelies' are beginning to by one, they let me know of their presence... Some are surprising; the ones I've forgotten were there, catching my eye as I go about my work. Others bloom as they have always...the 'legacies', as I've come to call matter how harsh the winter, or lack of moisture, through all sorts of neglect and adverse conditions...they somehow find a way to consistently bring beauty to my life. I've come to depend on their presence.

But the 'lovelies' that add the unexpected beauty that can't ever be planned are the 'volunteers'...the ones that surprise me in their unannounced presence; the ones I didn't know of before and haven't a clue as to how they made their way to me... They provide the lushness, the texture and color, that makes my garden so dear...and so uniquely mine.

Let us grow this beautiful garden...

Markus Archus:

This is good. I've been stopping in at various times through the work day, and finally in the past hour or so we're starting to get the kind of participation I was used to on the old board. But MUCH easier to use. And the help over there on the left is terrific.


This is Great!

I am Debi from VA (LongTimeLurker@shy) and I'm so glad Ed set this up. Less problems, nice place. I've been a lurker and occasional poster for about 2 years and I intend to continue on here. I feel we are all family and Ed is like a dad to us. Thanks for all you do Ed.

-- Old Git (, March 02, 2000.

Well that's gratitude for ya!

Deep down, this forum is very shallow.

You should consider yourselves lucky that Flint CARED enough to stir the fire - and do it in a way that invited thoughtful responses. Suppress this kind of dissent, and watch the fire go out. Your loss.

-- Debbie (, March 02, 2000.

So who else is banned?

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 02, 2000.

As much as I enjoy this forum I must stand by far as I know, Flint's only crime has been to be a vociferious opponent of the doomer genre, of which I was one. But I always admired Flints pointed but fair ( and correct ) opinion. The great thing about this forum is that differences of opinion can be tolerated. You can get by very nicely without me, but if Flint is kept out then I will stay out and look for a little more broadminded forum. Or as W.C. Fields once said " I would'nt join a club that would have me as a member"

-- citizen (, March 02, 2000.

Yes, perhaps we can have a complete list of everyone who is banned, and why?

-- Malcolm Taylor (, March 02, 2000.

Let's see. For over a year I made many contributions. I never once violated a single recommended forum guideline. I was never disruptive. I was not profane. I argued vigorously, but in a civil manner. I put a great deal of thought into my answers. I was willing to swim against a strong current to present a different opinion. I was never once anonymous, or posted under another name. I certainly never posted the same thing even twice, much less spammed. I was always careful to address the points raised by others to the best of my ability, though I'm only human and not a saint. I firmly believe I presented logical, carefully thought out, well supported positions.

And yes, the events that finally overtook us with respect to y2k showed that my approach had led to as close a description of what actually happened as was to be found on this board.

Now I ask anybody -- where in all this can the sysops find a justification for blackballing me? There is only one possibility -- that my position was not politically correct for this forum (despite being accurate), and that I posted on the "enemy" forum (even though I took equal issue with them).

And as someone has already said, this precedent is indeed chilling. It means you can be banned for holding the *wrong opinion*, however accurate, or carefully reasoned, or civilly presented. It means that if you don't *suck up* to the moderators, yer outta here. So best to express "officially approved" opinions, OR ELSE.

The notion, now put forward by Ed Yourdon himself, that I was somehow not part of a community of committed people, is absurd on the face of it. Would I have made over 3500 thoughtful posts had I not CARED about the subject or the outcome?

So what can I say, except that I hope y'all enjoy your comfortable and enforced conformity of opinion. Free thinkers indeed.

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

Flint, Y2K Pro was "honest" about his intentions also. In case you're not aware, the whole reason for moving this board to a new system was because of the high maintenance involved in managing the disruptive posters.

Suggestion: Why don't you volunteer to continue the upkeep of this board? That way, you can see what its like to constantly rebuild your anthill.

-- Kundalini (, March 02, 2000.

Apparently my crime is being *honest* about my motivations. Extremely interesting that honesty is banned.

This is analogous to a criminal claiming that he is being punished for confessing. In fact, he is being punished for his criminal actions, not his confession; his confession was only a piece of evidence against him. In your case, you have confessed that you weren't interested in Y2K except as an excuse to stir up trouble. People who were or are interested in it as a real problem have no use for the "contributions" of people like you, except as a bad example. You've already provided that example, so we can dispense with your "services" from now on.

P.S. I'm not a sysop either on this forum or the other one, contrary to the claims of some on other boards.

-- Steve Heller (, March 02, 2000.

It is practical that you list Testimonial names such as Lurkess, Wilfred and Markus. I "feel" like I know them, having seen their handle, read their words. But in reality, I do not know who or what they are. It has been a wild ride, but guess I will look for another Wagon Train. Speed.

-- No (, March 02, 2000.

This really has been the best forum. Thank you to those who've shared their knowlege freely. I wish I could have as quick a wit as what I've read here many times. Some of the essays and links have expanded my imagination so much. I can almost visualize Harbor Guy typing his reports. I haven't read everything Flint has written, but I wish I could argue like him. I've tiptoed into TB2000 twice. Hopefully the new TB2000 will be just as good or better. I'll stay tuned--maybe even try posting again. No flames please. Thanks again.

-- Mary (, March 02, 2000.

"This is analogous to a criminal claiming that he is being punished for confessing."

That's a mighty strained analogy there, bud.

"In fact, he is being punished for his criminal actions, not his confession; his confession was only a piece of evidence against him."

What are his "criminal actions"? All he's done is disagree with you, and he's done so with a degree of patience I genuinely admire.

"In your case, you have confessed that you weren't interested in Y2K except as an excuse to stir up trouble."

Please reread his previous post.

"People who were or are interested in it as a real problem have no use for the "contributions" of people like you, except as a bad example. You've already provided that example, so we can dispense with your "services" from now on."

Judging by the response both here and on the new board, there are a lot of folks who valued Flint's contributions.

Not that you need me sticking up for you, Flint. But I'm still at work, in a really bad mood, and I don't feel like ignoring stupidity.

-- RC (, March 02, 2000.

I have heard the vitriol of "liberal Hater". Is he banned? I have read so many nasty posts from so many handles-Are these people all banned?? Is it too much to ask who is on the list??

I am having a crisis here-I love the board, but if it is going to do the very thing most of its members hate, control and censor, and take away freedom of speech, then I do not see how I can stay.

I have read many of Flint's posts. I don't remember any of them being totally offensive. Are the Sysops now the supreme court of TB2000? Can a popular vote restore Flint??

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 02, 2000.


You write:

"In case you're not aware, the whole reason for moving this board to a new system was because of the high maintenance involved in managing the disruptive posters."

Yes, I was well aware, and highly supportive of the idea. Idiots like LadyLogic were making the forum nearly unusable. I confess, it didn't occur to me that the new forum would be used to ban "wrong" opinions as well as bad behavior.

When I wrote (above) that I was not disruptive, I meant it. It was never once necessary for any sysop to lift a finger in any way, due to anything I ever posted to this forum.

Steve Heller:

If you can cite a single post I ever made to this forum that merits banning me, I would love to see it. I admit I have doubted your own motivations, even your sanity at times. But your posts have always fallen within the guidelines and expressed a viewpoint no less sincere than my own. Your contribution, stupid as I sometimes think it is, is nonetheless valuable and I can't deny that. If I had the power to ban your posts, the only motivation I could muster for doing so would be petty vindictiveness. I like to consider myself a bit more grown up than that. And while you may not like me either, you might grow up as well.

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

Mr/Ms Flint, et all. There are other places for Voices of Reason, right up at the top of the page, click on Lusenet. There are a couple or three forums which L.L. has never visited (interestingly enough).

-- Been thrown (, March 02, 2000.

I just tried posting there and it said I was banned. Is any one that ever posted to BIFFY or DEBUNKER boards banned?

-- Steve (, March 02, 2000.

I do believe I have seen every one of the Sysops here say negative things (to say the least) about people and/or organizations who enforce PC speech.

Now they have their own definition of PC speech, and intend to enforce it harshly.

Must we always become the thing we despise?

-- Too much spam here (, March 02, 2000.


Sorry I'm coming in so late on the "Flint Case," but it happened over supper. On return what do I find out but what I thought was a slightly humorous registration glitch in the new forum software ---- turns out to be the actual sysops' policy regarding Flint's track record, a record that contains none of the criteria expressed in past administrative protocols.

This turn of events boggles the mind. Especially painful is that it comes at precisely the time when some fruits have come to bear in my latest pet project: to get us Doomers to admit we made clearcut prediction mistakes, to help unearth some of the details of why and how we made these mistakes, and to help Doomers and Pollies to admit how violent (using the tongue as the weapon) behaviour did nothing to forward any mutual understanding of the issues. Further salt on the wound is today's considerably predictable barrage of insults directed at Flint's posts.

In conclusion, because the medium here is not visual/audio, just silent words, I'm unable to communicate the depth of my dismay with mere text. So I'll have to respond with action. If you don't un-ban Flint, you have just lost ole Doc Schenker. It's a package deal, sysops ---- either both of us post here or neither of us do. I'll lurk for a while but if I don't see Flint posting on the new TB2K, or an sysops announcement here revoking the ban -- then you can take the new TB2K AND SHOVE IT. Saranoya.

-- William J. Schenker, MD (, March 02, 2000.

Flint has been a very big part of this forum for at least the year that I've been a regular. I consider Flint an on-line friend, one of many that I've made here. I have a VERY BIG problem with Flint being "banned" on this or any other forum.

Most of us are guilty of making statements here that we really didn't mean, or that are taken the wrong way, or taken out of context. Y2K Pro makes a living pointing these out. Haven't we had enough of that yet?

Sorry, this just ain't right. In my opinion, Flint has never violated the "rules" of this forum.

I am not happy with this decision. <:(=

-- Sysman (, March 02, 2000.

Doc, I know I am mispelling this to hell, but Danka Schein.

-- Southern (, March 02, 2000.

Hey Doc-did you read the party analogy on the new board-that flint is not invited to the party??

Would any serious student of human nature, or anybody seeking serious discourse on important issues, want to go to a party where everybody sits around agreeing with each other??

Do Ed and the Sysops(A new surf rock band?) seriously want to have unsubstantiated posts left unquestioned. Do they not want flawed logic pointed out?

Flint-I hereby accuse you of trying to tell the truth you ^#@&$^@^!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 02, 2000.

Flint, Doc, etal -

The problem is, I think the sysops are tired of being, as you say Flint, "kicked". It's their prerogative who they allow to contribute. This forum, or the new one, do not "belong" to anyone, but in this case, they ARE the supreme court justices. This is a LUSENET forum Flint; it ain't Amnesty International.

That said, I disagree with censorship. But in this case, there was a line, and you crossed it when you boasted with your cohorts, who have made the sysops' job so difficult these past months, and dearly enjoyed every minute of it.

-- Kundalini (, March 02, 2000.

Bill and Sysman, I admire your standing up for freedom of speech and tolerance of different opinions and belief. I can hardly believe what I am reading in this thread. Flint is one of the more articulate posters here, although I never considered him even a "polly" as far a pollies go, just an intelligent skeptic.

This will be the new forums loss, because what they will be left with is an average IQ many points lower and sysops who have no tolerance for anything but dutiful worship of the current beliefs.

I have no desire to go there myself which should leave one less thinker to ban, since a sysop who doesn't have the courage to use a real email address is probably a pretty good indication of the "quality" you can expect of the new board. * sigh * , lol.

-- FactFinder (, March 02, 2000.

"That said, I disagree with censorship. But in this case, there was a line, and you crossed it when you boasted with your cohorts, who have made the sysops' job so difficult these past months, and dearly enjoyed every minute of it."

Two problems with that: 1) Flint was never, to my knowledge, a regular poster on the debunker boards, and isn't held in the highest esteem by some of them. 2) His "offensive" remarks were aimed equally at the debunkers, not just at the TB2000 crowd.

-- RC (, March 02, 2000.

Just a quick comment about Flint, as I'm transitioning out.

I may not wish to sit down and sip lattes with him, because frankly he's treated most people here, including me, with obvious distain, however, I think he should be allowed to post on the new forum, and I'm participating in the Sysop discussions on that issue.

A few are highly offended by his actions, but as he said, he did not spam, etc.

Please allow some time for this to be resolved... soon. There are ruffled feathers that require smoothing.

(Who said this would be easy?)



-- Diane J. Squire (, March 02, 2000.


I strongly suspect that if your accusation were correct, I wouldn't be banned. But I've always been uncomfortable with this Truth business. I regard any investigation as an effort to come up with the most reasonable, likely, and defensible description of reality. Facts are rarely complete, interpretation is always iffy, and as a result logic is of limited (but very useful) help. I think my effort to deny Faith in favor of effort is ultimately what offends the sysops so much. It is emphatically no accident that my most vocal sysop critic is a seminary graduate.

At the top of this thread, Yourdon writes "We'll warn offenders to stop making such posts", yet I was never warned, even on THIS forum. Yourdon writes "A handful of trolls and spammers who have made persistent, aggressive efforts to disrupt this forum will be blocked", yet I never trolled or spammed this forum.

If your approach is one of facts, interpretation, and logic, there should be no issue here at all. But when you have the Truth, you don't need reasons, nor even honesty. So far, the only reason put forward is my failure to fit a "community", which appears to be another way of saying I figured out y2k correctly despite incredible opposition over the last year. But correctness is the enemy of Truth in the same way that excellence is the enemy of Perfection.

-- Flint (, March 02, 2000.

And Heller, I have never been anything but polite in my posts to you, but this time, I must say sir, your post above is hypocritical.

Banning Flint from a forum for his expressions - and ESPECIALLLY HIS EXPRESSIONS IN ANOTHER FORUM! - is nothing but a slap at someone you disagree with.

Why are you a hypocrite? You took exeption to those who stated that they would not buy a programming book you wrote due to your views on y2k. I disagreed with those who said this.

Flint - You don't like his views, you don't like him, he doesn't get to talk, 'cause he doesn't say what you want to hear. But it's wrong to not buy your book just because of your y2k views, eh?


-- (, March 02, 2000.


Tounge out of my cheek. I am not accusing you of anything. I am with you and I can dig you not wanting to have your name associated with "The Truth". Sorry.

Kundalini-you have posted on every Flint thread tonight, old and new forum, and I appreciate your opinion.

HOWEVER, you and the moderators have begun to take yourselves too seriously if you think gloating or thumping of chests is an offense equal to lady logic. Any person with a modicum of intelligence who has frequented this board knows how many posters ridiculed pollies every time the dow went down 10 points or a light went out at an oil refinery.

There is no justifying this ban if you want open, intelligent discourse. it is like wawawawawawawawa Flint told somebody he liked getting people riled up.

MANY of the posters here have said things to rile people up, powder, and others, but none of them expressed it in the manner Flint did.

Thank you for your input, Kundalini. If you want a closed forum of like-minded people, or with the contrarian people being quiet about their motives, god bless.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 02, 2000.

Diane, As far as the sysop or unnamed author who "banned" Flint, let me help you smooth those feathers....:

"Dear Sir/Madam. You are a cowardly, stupid, idiot. You have banned Flint, who was never considered one of the "debunkers" and as far as I know rarely dropped by Biffy, because he ticked you off at one time or the other I suppose. Get real, get a life, buy bit of courage with your y2k hukstered money. Also please provide me with your real email address, as I rarely use vulgarity in my posts, and wish to tell you to kiss my ass in private."


-- FactFinder (, March 02, 2000.


You need to take a "chill pill."

A diplomat you'll never be. (Not that I'd ever anticipate that from you). Is there a forum equivalent to road rage?


Night all.


-- Diane J. Squire (, March 02, 2000.

On the contrary Y2K Pro, this whole situation was directly caused by your juvenile antics.

And you seem to be quite proud of that fact.

-- Kundalini (, March 02, 2000.

Well, now i'm really leaving. Just like my previous favorite discussion site, laisfun, all good boards come to an end.

Enjoy the mayo and white bread at your new site.

-- INever (, March 02, 2000.

It is NOT a trailer....It's a mobile home!

joking of course; I thought this would be an excellent place to interject some humor. =P

-- cin (, March 03, 2000.


If you can cite a single post I ever made to this forum that merits banning me, I would love to see it.

Sorry, I don't have time to wade through hundreds of thousands of posts, whose authors aren't listed in an index, looking for one that meets that criterion. However, it's not necessary, as you'll see below.

I admit I have doubted your own motivations, even your sanity at times.

Doubted my sanity on what grounds? Because I disagreed with you? I've never doubted your sanity. For that matter, I've been pretty sure about your motivations too, and it appears my conclusions were correct.

But your posts have always fallen within the guidelines

Yes, that is true.

... and expressed a viewpoint no less sincere than my own.

An easy standard to meet, by your own admission.

Your contribution, stupid as I sometimes think it is, is nonetheless valuable and I can't deny that.

I'm afraid I don't understand how a contribution can be both "stupid" and "valuable", except perhaps as a horrible example. That's not much of a compliment, in any event.

If I had the power to ban your posts, the only motivation I could muster for doing so would be petty vindictiveness.


I like to consider myself a bit more grown up than that. And while you may not like me either, you might grow up as well.

I'm perfectly grown up, thank you. But that's enough about me; let's get back to you. There are two points that you have seemed to overlook in your argument.

1. I'm not a sysop, and don't have the power to ban your posts. I'm merely expressing my opinion that your contribution isn't worth having. How can you object to that after calling my contributions "stupid"?

2. One of the guidelines for posting here is that trolls are not allowed. Here is the official internet definition of "troll":

troll v.,n. (from "The on-line hacker Jargon File, version 4.2.0, 31 
JAN 2000")

1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on 
Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase 
"trolling for newbies" which in turn
comes from mainstream "trolling", a style of fishing in which one 
trails bait through a likely spot hoping
for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of 
newbies and flamers to make themselves
look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying 
to the more savvy and experienced that it
is in fact a deliberate troll. If you don't fall for the joke, you get 
to be in on it. See also YHBT.

2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts 
specious arguments, flames or
personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no 
other purpose than to annoy
someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact 
that the have no real interest in
learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame 
bait. Like the ugly creatures
they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and 
as such, they are recognized
as a lower form of life on the net, as in, "Oh, ignore him, he's just 
a troll."

Please note that by your admitted motivation, you fit definition #2. Since trolls are not permitted by the terms of use of this board, you are violating those terms. Q. E. D.

-- Steve Heller (, March 03, 2000.


Flint - You don't like his views, you don't like him, he doesn't get to talk, 'cause he doesn't say what you want to hear.

Again, I don't decide who posts and who doesn't, as I am not a sysop. Am I not entitled to an opinion on that? I guess not. Who's "censoring" now?

But it's wrong to not buy your book just because of your y2k views, eh?

It's not "wrong" to avoid my C++ books because of my Y2K views; it's just stupid. For that matter, I posted a message on the old "Debunkers" forum asking them NOT to buy my books, as I would not want to give them assistance if they had trouble, considering their ceaseless personal attacks on me. I'll be happy to extend that to anyone else who thinks my Y2K views have anything to do with my knowledge of C++ or my ability to explain complex ideas. Am I still a hypocrite?

-- Steve Heller (, March 03, 2000.

So, the TB forum moves to a new level of censorship. That's not too suprising. Flint, you have my sympathy, but why sould you be suprised? To get along with this bunch of losers you have to be willing to kiss some serious butt and lower your IQ significantly.

It's thier loss...

I would try to lurk in the new forum, but if it takes more than one step, it's not worth the trouble.

-- Bob Brock (, March 03, 2000.

Well,well,well...the truth is finally out. In my experience of over a year reading the posts, Flint maintained himself as an intelligent expressive capable writer and participant. I did not find him to be offensive or ill mannered. I often speculated about the many complaints others had of him. I think there was some jealousy of his intelligence and ability to communicate effectively,something quite rare on this forum especially during these last few months. However, this last bit of BS about banishment by the Thought Police is the final cut for me. Haven't been here much anyway and with a new persona to boot, I really had lost interest in the daily whinings of the masses of most and some(please note)of the jackbooted SSysops. Best wishes to you Flint and Doc Schenker,Will continue and others. This place has finally "morphed" into a herd. Best wishes in the new barn.

-- Ma Kettle (, March 03, 2000.

Steve Heller:

"Please note that by your admitted motivation, you fit definition #2. Since trolls are not permitted by the terms of use of this board, you are violating those terms. Q. E. D."

Uh, diffidently I point out that I made over 3500 posts to this forum, but was only called a troll by those who created the term "pollytroll" to describe ANY disagreement with the Official (and now badly discredited) Position on what y2k would bring us. Surely anyone whose prediction proved accurate should wear such a title proudly.

But your observations are themselves a wonderful object lesson. You don't WANT anyone who gets things right. People like that make YOU look stupid. What I tried to tell you was, IF you'd been right and I'd been totally wrong, and IF you'd called me stupid, I would not be able to deny it. I WOULD have been stupid. And there would be YOUR 3500 posts ahead of time, every one of them not only telling me that I was stupid, but telling me exactly HOW and WHY I was stupid, in great detail. If I were honest (and adult), I'd have to admit you knew what you were talking about, and were emphatically worth listening to.

YOU, on the other hand, just can't seem to STAND being so wrong and having it illustrated (even ahead of time) so clearly. YOUR way of "learning" is to approve a BAN on opinions that time proves correct.

Steve, ever wonder, deep in your heart, just how you could have missed the boat quite that badly? Has it even begun to occur to you that the position you've just taken couldn't possibly answer those questions any better?

-- Flint (, March 03, 2000.

Diane J., Librarian, Linkmeister and others.

Thank you all.


-- maid upname (, March 03, 2000.

Flint, we like our little anthill the way it is, we don't want someobody kicking it around. The anthill was built by us ants with similar views and willingness to cooperate with the spirit of the community.

You should be careful when you go around kicking ants, sometimes they are the kind that leave a nasty bite. I'm glad you had "fun" and felt "superior" while you were "kicking" us around, but now you've been bitten, and you deserved it. Happy trails, asshole!

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 03, 2000.


I think a pattern is emerging here. What you and I did was, we *consorted with the enemy*. We posted on the ENEMY forum. No matter that most of my posts to that forum were critical of them, I guess.

But this isn't universal. I've seen several aliases on the new board who posted to the debunker board. I suspect the critical difference ultimately comes down to one's relation to the censors. Better make buddies of them before doing anything dangerous like thinking. Especially if your thinking turns out to be right.

Given the capabilities of the EZBOARD software, the term "moderator" has become obsolete. There's nothing left to moderate. Apparently the only thing this group does anymore is decide whose opinion is approved. And it's pretty evident already that Ed Yourdon is exercising some influence there. If he approves of a decision, then he's helpless and it's "up to the sysops". If he disapproves, it doesn't happen.

-- Flint (, March 03, 2000.

Well, I guess this is what some of the sysops really wanted to see.... a nice forum that everyone could just post nice messages about agreeing with whatever tinfoil notion anyone wanted to post. I guess this will get me banned also.

Flint is a logical, knowledgeable, polite person who's views happened to disagree with some of the other folks on the forum. Paul Milne is a nasty, illogical, and vindictive person who's views happened to agree with many of the folks on the forum. So who gets banned....?

Good'll need it as the cult starts to form

-- Jim Cooke (, March 03, 2000.

And Hawk gets to call people "asshole" but he's on OK guy....?

Good Grief.

-- Jim Cooke (, March 03, 2000.

I guess TPTB got the job done. Another candle of free speech gone.

Excuse me while I go roll over in my grave.

-- bobby (, March 03, 2000.

Oh my God! If the "church doors have been shut and guards have been posted" let me out!!!

There is something very wrong with this banning of Flint (and Jonathan). In all honesty I have to say there is something very scary about this.


Yes, I am hearing that loud and clear!

I certainly will not remain in a "church" which approves of name- calling (see above using asshole) and disapproves of intelligent, caring communication.

Flint, I feel very bad for you. This must be hard considering the time and effort you've put in. I felt your concern for the people here. I have benefited greatly from your many posts and I stayed up late many a night reading them. One of my favorite things (and I believe one of life's most important lessons) is to be challenged in my thinking. You have done that and you have done that well. Thank you.

I, personally, feel very cheated by this decision and I hope that Mr. Yourdon changes his mind. I hope that others will also support Jonathan Latimer.

-- NOT (, March 03, 2000.


There are many of us who "know what we know" and we know that this ban of Flint is not good for this group. Please reconsider.

-- Kathy (, March 03, 2000.

Well Flint ole boy, if I was Ed, I'd do the same. Saying he was only in it for the money was the epitome of disrespect and untruth. AND IT WAS/IS HIS FORUM.

It was in truth your superiority complex unable to fit a true computer expert into your little y2k worldview. Keep begging my boy and say please.

-- lurker (lurking@the.ranch), March 03, 2000.

Excuse me but I don't see any begging here. What I see is intelligent, rational, truthful questioning. Fact is I have the same questions.

Mr. Yourdon, I respectfully submit that there are a number of posts here that are abusive. THESE are the type of people that deserve to be banned. Why do you let them stay? Do you consider them reasonably civil and well-behaved? Not in my book.

-- ???? (???@???.com), March 03, 2000.

Well Flint ole boy, if I was Ed, I'd do the same.

Agreed. I see no problems with the policy as it stands. Judging from the many people who seem to have registered already, it looks like most of us are in agreement. If you want to cry about it, go somewhere else. The pollys can still read the posts, so maybe they'll actually learn something and we won't have to read their mindless drivel. It's a win- win for everyone.

-- (, March 03, 2000.

It is not a win-win situation for anyone if only one point of view is offered.

Pre roll-over I followed Mr. Yourdon's writings. I have respect for him. I have respect for myself and I determined there was a great possibility things would go wrong so I prepped. Much more than I should have.

Flint offered a different view. In hindsight he was right and I was wrong. I respect his thoughts and I have a deep desire to understand WHY I came to the conclusion I did. Flint's writings are intelligent and put forth in such a way that I could see where I was strong in my reasoning and where I wasn't.

The act of banning Flint is an insult to all who respected the way he put forth his thoughts. Whether one agreed with Flint or not he has the ability to help others think in a better way.

This would be "mindless drivel" only for those who do not have the mind to understand it.

This is a loss even for those who think not.

If some did not like his posts all they had to do was pass over them. The others who enjoyed his posts have no choice whatsoever now.

Flint has been cheated. I have been cheated. Many others have been cheated.

-- Debra (, March 03, 2000.

Dictatorships in history allways have tried to control free speech. I have enugh of this.

Good luck in your small little dictator world .... the new forum.

Flint, and Bill I am with you on that.

We live in a free world and unfortunately those that are paranoid about NWO and Communism behave just like them.

There are other places on the web that are truly free. I did not move to this country to be enslaved again, not physicaly or mentaly.

List provider do sell your e-mail and other data they collect. Even tho they say otherwise. I am subscribing to a few of those "free" list providers and the result is spam, spam, spam...That is the reason for the yahoo account.

Good luck to all of you, Bill you have my private e-mail address, keep in touch.

-- RickJohn (, March 03, 2000.

Well, I just now caught this thing about Flint.

Yes, the notorious "anthill" comment bothered me. But, you know, it really doesn't merit shutting the door on his voice.

More importantly, though, regardless of his motivation, Flint has added much color to the Y2K debates by providing a different viewpoint in a mostly civil, thoughtful manner. You know, when he's taken on by some of the sharp defenders of opposing viewpoints, I think the potential is there for us all to learn something. And isn't that really one of the main reasons we're all here?

Ed and sysops -- Please reconsider your decision and allow Flint to participate.

-- eve (, March 03, 2000.

Anybody who considers that DONEYBROOK over on ezboard a cult or herd hasn't spent any time on it. Hardly a monolithic entity. Hardly a display of group think.

GO read it for a while and see if you find all that much agreement. Except for the banning threads, where the majority of the posters seem to be in agreement that the baning, in general, and Flint and Jonathan in particular is a mistake.

Extremely interesting that the most volatile threads are the ones where the majority (that's 50% plus 1 for the terminology challenged form Rio Linda) of the posts are in opposition to the supposed jackbooted sysops. The existence of the threads gives the lie to the complaints.

Interesting species down here.

Think I'll go back to the starlanes.


-- Joss Metadi (warhammer@Pride.of.Mandeyne), March 03, 2000.

Well, I see my last post (which was short and contained an opinion only) was deleted *here*, so I guess this is really my last (sigh).

I'd like to leave with a MUCH paraphrased line from the end of G. Orwell's Animal Farm (it's been about 20 years since I read it, so don't go berzerk about the paraphrase).

"And as the animals opened the door to the house, they saw the Pigs arguing with the Men and were suprised at what they saw. As they looked from one group to the other, they were unable to tell which was which."


-- Someone (, March 03, 2000.

Doesn't make sense.

I'm able to get a password and Flint isn't??

Sorry guys......;-)


-- Deano (, March 03, 2000.

All I can say is... *GOOD LUCK ED*...

...And I'm very grateful the "outraged" DeBunkie/BIFFYites, posting as numerous personalities on this thread, are NOT my headache any more!!! (I'll send you some asprin).


Flint, I've put my 2 cents into the Sysops conversations, and I may not agree that you are "persona non grata" and think that you should be able to post, but it's NOT my call.

Would I invite you to ANY party I was holding in my own home?

Doubt it. You've never impressed me as a person who cares what other people think. You've just repeatedly heckled, "needled" and spit on other people over and over again (including Ed). That much, has always been "obvious" no matter how "right" (or not) you thought you were.

Oh well.

You can DEBATE it over the next how many daze? Or... you can start your own forum Flint. It's "easy" to get started on Greenspun. You can figure it out.

Your choice.

Best wishes all.

I'm gonna "get me a latte" and release Flint to his highest place of learning.




-- Diane J. Squire (, March 03, 2000.

Definitely Flint should get a backstage pass but until he does it's not like 2/3 of us couldn't impersonate him and nobody know the difference.

We can trade off Flint shifts until/when he's admitted.

-- lisa (, March 03, 2000.











-- NOTKATHY???DEBRA (, March 03, 2000.

Gonna miss us, Pro?

You spending so much time in airports investigating all the near- mi- airs recently?


-- lisa (, March 03, 2000.

Hey - it's Y2K Pro! I remember him...Gee...since I've been at the new forum, I'd almost forgotten about that clown.

-- (@ .), March 03, 2000.


Folks, I'm going to post this message on two or three of the related threads, in case some people don't see it here...

All of the moderators and I have read the various comments on this thread and others. We appreciate your input, and we respect your views on the subject; we've also had a few rounds of emails back and forth amongst us to see whether we should reconsider, and reverse our decision.

There are a couple sysops who feel that Flint -- and by extension, some (though perhaps not all) of the people whom we considered trouble-makers on the old Greenspun forum -- should be given a second chance, and allowed in. But a strong majority disagreed, and felt that it would lead to a repetition of the same experiences we had over there. Lest you forget, it was just those kinds of disruptions and problems that finally made us take the decision to move over here.

So the ban on Flint's participation in this forum stands. As various people have noted on this thread, Flint is active on other forums, so you can hear (or read) his views elsewhere. Also, Flint is welcome to start his own ezBoard forum and invite all of you to visit; he's also welcome to ban me, the other sysops, or anyone else that he feels would not fit appropriately into his group.

I realize that some of you may feel quite strongly about this decision, and may decide to leave the forum in protest. I respect your feelings, and wish you well in whatever forum(s) you end up in; but for the moderators and I, the decision is final.

After posting this message, I'm going to "close" this thread, which means that no additional replies will be allowed. This is primarily a symbolic act, to demonstrate that I don't intend to come back to see if yet another opinion on the matter has been posted on this thread. Obviously, those of you who would like to discuss the various philosophical, political, and metaphysical aspects of the issue are welcome to start a new thread and continue the discussion to your heart's content.


-- (anon@anon.anon), March 03, 2000.

Frank, PLEASE don't leave us. I'll will be very very sad.

See this booboo face? =o(

-- cin (, March 03, 2000.

[quote]"All I can say is... *GOOD LUCK ED*... ...And I'm very grateful the "outraged" DeBunkie/BIFFYites, posting as numerous personalities on this thread, are NOT my headache any more!!! (I'll send you some asprin).



Very smug and very wrong. I am not what you call a DeBunkie/Biffyite. I believe all you have to do is check my posts on the new forum and you will see that. All posted under Debra as that board is set up. Even one here on this board is signed that way.

I saw something I believed was wrong and I entered multiple discussions about it.

About Flint and Jonathan I can only state my opinion.

About the sysops I now have personal knowledge.


Ed- I'm sitting here at my desk looking at all the items I printed from your writings. And I have a very sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. What has been done to Flint and Jonathan and now myself-I don't even know what to say. I listened, I respected, I reasoned and yes I even trusted. And now I wonder. I didn't want my email address posted and now I have my location posted.

And sorry, I forgot,I did post the other day a couple of times under another name but different addresses. Those few posts address similar subject matter but not anything a DeBunkie/Biffyite would post. In the interest of understanding that what happened here is a serious violation of members rights I would direct you to those posts. If you need me to direct you to them I will.

-- Honestly Feeling ill (, March 03, 2000.

Free Flint

-- flora (***@__._), March 03, 2000.

Just posted this over at the new board, and emailed it to EY. Just wanted it on record here, too:

"I'm sorry if you were offended by the remark, but indeed, I did find it curious that a small group of people would jump on the Flint issue so quickly."


Curious HOW, Ed?

As the person who started the "Is Flint banned" thread, I am one of the "small group of people" you refer to. In reality, I'm just a person who asked a question. I'm not related to any "group", as you imply, and I resent my motives being questioned.

What were my motives? Well, I honestly thought a mistake had been made, and could be easily corrected. Then I found out that it was NOT a mistake, and that a person who had made THOUSANDS of well thought out contributions to TB2000 was banned, ostensibly because of one post made on *another* board. This struck me as exceedingly petty and vindictive, and I frankly still can't believe you sanctioned this decision, Ed.

This morning, I find out that not only is the unfailingly polite Jonathan Latimer banned, but also Hoffmeister. That you have decided to dispense with the input of someone with Ted Hoffman's technical expertise speaks volumes.

Ed, I wish I could wish you luck in you new ventures outside the computer industry, which you have clearly decided to leave behind. But I can't.

Randy Christopher - disillusioned programmer

-- RC (, March 03, 2000.

It looks as if I'm not the only one feeling bummed today,what started out as being so promising has collapsed into utter dismay,I can't believe it.If there are those of you that believe as I do that all this is B.S are there any places where we can go to discuss alternatives ? Being a constitutionalist, the current tactics I am observing are saddening and agregious (sp).Any thoughts ? GOD I'M BUMMED :( email is real.

-- capnfun (, March 03, 2000.

Couldn't leave without sharing this tidbit someone just sent me in an e-mail...

"Great minds discuss ideas;
Average minds discuss events;
Small minds discuss people."

Timebomb discusses ideas and events, the GNIABFI discusses Timebomb.


Peace and fare thee well.


-- Diane J. Squire (, March 03, 2000.

Chiming, your post was deleted because it might have offended Jewish forum participants.

NotKathy, unless your family are the only occupants of that town, you have no cause for worry.

-- (Sysop@still.up), March 03, 2000.

Thanks Diane!!

The whiners will find something else to amuse themselves before long. They always do.

-- (, March 03, 2000.

Sysop still up-

As long as people here have knowledge of my email address I cannot now trust that any other information wouldn't be posted.

Watch what they do and not what they say never rang more true.


[Done--another Sysop--now try using just one name on an issue rather than pretending to be different people reacting--Sysop]

-- Shaking (, March 03, 2000.

Bottom line - Doomers were wrong and pollies were right. The debate was fun to watch but it had a winner. So the losers are taking their ball and going home. Great smokescreen at the end here to sign off with. And my brother thinks he's a chicken and I need the eggs.

Still crossing those '99s off my preprinted forms,

Proud Polly

-- QuietMan (, March 03, 2000.


Totalitarians discuss what they deem as discussable.

Sorry,but I disagree wholeheartedly.

Still bummed :(

-- capnfun (, March 03, 2000.

I am posting a 'snippet' from an email that was circulated amongst former and current sysops/moderators; this is a portion of my reply...

My "problem" with Flint quite likely comes from a very personal bias against "bullies" - bullies who effectively limit (read: censor) others voicing of opinions by creating deliberate havoc when others speak. I've dealt with parallel examples of "Flint-like" behavior from individuals with whom I've worked with while involved in community government and revitalization issues. My objection to Flint is not against the 'man', per se, nor with any individual who genuinely is passionate about his beliefs - however opposed to my own they may be - my objection is to the motivations behind the 'need' to disrupt, create havoc, bring the focus to themselves. In doing so, they disrupt the "going forward" of a project or discussion. They also effectively silence many voices of the crowd - voices that are quite put off by such actions - because the voices have neither the time, nor the energy, to wade through the invective.

Had I not been aware of Flint's admitted gloating about 'anthill kicking' (and it makes NO difference to me whether it is on TB2000 forum, or BFI - it's the intent and 'need' to disrupt that's the point), I most likely would have thought it best to allow him in. Personally, I've thought for some time that his motivation for participating was not to engage in true intellectual 'debate', but to serve as a vehicle for stroking some part of his ego. But then...that's true for many, I suppose.

Coming on the heels of a somewhat turbulent last few months, that particular admission did not sit well with me. While I was not in the original decision loop regarding this, I did let Ed know that I supported him in his decision regarding Flint.

But...what now? On one hand, you have to understand that I have very strong feelings concerning 'negotiating' with 'terrorists'. he indeed a 'terrorist'? Does he have the forum equivalent of a suitcase 'device' he carries with him, or is he more akin to an angry teenager who must always have things in an uproar, and the attention always focused on him?

I stayed up late last night watching both of the forums (old and new) and thought perhaps I'd have a clearer idea of what needs to happen this morning; I'm not sure that I do. I don't play bridge, but have been a 'pigskin devotee' for many years; I can relate to the "Instant Replay" analogy. This *is* a different playing field, and perhaps a different 'league', with different rules of play. We are in 'mini-camp' right now, still working out the details. I don't believe it will cause irreparable harm if a decision is reversed after a more studied and considered review is given, whether it is this incident, or others that are surely to come.

Remember not quite a year ago the angst and dissension and gnashing of teeth that followed Ed's stepping back? It was a transition...we got through it, and grew. This is no different, really. I have no problem wearing egg on my face, if indeed that's what this is...I prefer to call it a skin treatment - something that looks ugly, is messy, but is a good thing in the long run.

That was early this morning. Since then, a decision has been made. I post this, not to feed a debate, but merely to allow a glimpse into the process by which a decision was made.

Let us go forward...

-- Wilferd (, March 03, 2000.

Well, it's official and permanent. The "banned" list is known to include several posters who never came even close to violating a single forum guideline. Yourdon and his hand puppets are protecting their cult following from *idea pollution*, pure and simple. The "spam" issue is revealed as a flimsy pretext.

Incredibly, Yourdon has chosen to spam his own forum with a stern warning (see above) to all those who are disturbed by obvious thought policing. The gist of his warning is simple -- SHUT UP!

What remains is a definition of "open discussion" and "free exchange of ideas" that would have appalled George Orwell. They seek to avoid "disruption", and have defined disruption as *disagreement*.

The "debate" that remains bears an unmistakeable resemblance to a group of white men (nobody else allowed) sitting around talking about the best solution to the "nigger problem". When prejudices run that strong, any wider view is simply too uncomfortable to tolerate.

Well, my email address is and always has been real, if anyone cares for open discussion without fear of being ostracized for saying anything other than "me too". The rest are welcome to go parrot the Yourdon Party Line, OR ELSE.

-- Flint (, March 03, 2000.


How does any of this relate to the banning of Latimer and, particularly, Hoffmeister? Banning one of the best tech folks who contributed to the old forum is inexplicable.

-- RC (, March 03, 2000.

I'd be willing to start one of those EZBOARD forum things if anyone else is interested. It seems they ARE free, right? It certainly seems as though there are enough folks interested from what I've read on the new forum.

I'd allow ANY dissenting opinions on Y2k aftermath, but would NOT allow profanity, spamming, singling out PEOPLE rather than EVENTS, or off-topic discussions. There IS a curiosity in many as to WHY things went so RIGHT after so many feared things would go SO WRONG. It seems to me that BOTH sides have something to offer on this one.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 03, 2000.

Adios folks, I figure I'll be banned anyway, as I'm one of those liberals this board hates so much. Also, as a former book seller, I abhor banning. When you start banning anything--books, speech, people, ideas--especially ideas and people with whom you disagree--it never ends. Just keep right on with your holier-than-thou banning.

Although I haven't seen any of Invar's posts lately, he was a darling of this board and yet he made Flint and Y2K Pro sound like Bo-Peep, with his hateful rantings.

I agree with wtih Doc Schenker, I am dismayed that you have chosen to be so petty and exclusive with this forum. Doc was correct when he said, the pollies were right the doomers were wrong, and yet pollies are still treated like swine dung. It's time I left this house of doom; I never really fit in with the hate and fear mentality anyway.

I was a half-assed doomer, and I WAS WRONG, just like the rest of you doomers in denial. As Doc said, you can "Take TB2K and shove it."

-- gilda (, March 03, 2000.

Flint is right, it's thought policing. I'm a longtimer who's disagreed vehemently with Flint and Hoff in the past, but find myself agreeing vehemently with Flint now.

Someone already started a freespeech2000 forum on EZboard, Anita.


No registration or password required.

I personally feel that starting a new one on Lusenet would be better, the format is simpler and easier for everyone.

-- Someone (, March 03, 2000.

Gilda leaving does not surprise me. Same reaction as all the other great minds. TB2K forum culled of all great minds. What do you end up with?

Neurotic sheeples.

-- Someone (, March 03, 2000.

I too wish someone would start a new forum on Lusenet, as I also feel it is easier and simpler. I also believe in free speech, and dissenting opinions are refreshing, if sometimes caustic. Let the ME TOO crowd keep singing backup to one another.

-- gilda (, March 03, 2000.

Flint, let me know where you will be hanging your hat. I don't always agree with you but respect your opinions. I won't be going to the new 'beehive' and become a drone.I now reveal myself as:

-- citizen (, March 03, 2000.

ALSO I'm surprised and disapointed at you Ed. Being a writer, you should plainly see the value of a free discourse. I personally enjoy the diverse and off topic items. So what if we wade through a little stupidity along the way...we can't all be genuises!

-- Kelly (, March 03, 2000.

I started a new forum on Lusenet. I hope everyone will come to it and help me recapture the atmosphere we used to have here.

TB2K Spinoff Uncensored

DNS now: maps to ...

-- Old TB2K forum regular (, March 03, 2000.

Ok, I give, I did try to post over at ez, and it was hard for me. I never did get to post, ANYONE, what am I doing wrong? Am I banned? ====thanks

-- consumer (, March 03, 2000.

Kelly, As a former book store owner, I too was surprised that any writer would even think of allowing censorship to flourish.

-- gilda (, March 03, 2000.

I just noticed this in Diane's little parting shot, re:Flint:

"You've just repeatedly heckled, "needled" and spit on other people over and over again (including Ed). That much, has always been "obvious" no matter how "right" (or not) you thought you were."

Diane, these are flat out, unadulterated LIES! Complete and utter BULLSHIT!

I've been knocking around this board for almost a year, and have seen nothing from Mr. Flint that could even REMOTELY be characterized as "heckling" or "spitting", which in fact are pretty good descriptions of what he had to put up with in response.

What the hell's the matter with you, Diane? What a classless way to leave.

-- RC (, March 03, 2000.

Too late. I already started a forum on EZBOARD. It IS password- protected for posting, but doesn't have anyone preset in the ban list. It is NOT for those interested in discussing chemtrails, the Year2000 elections, conspiracy theories, politics, or religion. Have I excluded anyone? [grin] It is NOT for spammers. It is strictly for those of us who found the Y2k [computer glitch] discussions interesting and would like to continue.

Bill started an interesting series of threads regarding the pollies versus the doomers, and I hated to see his series end because folks were banned. Personally, I never wanted religion, politics, conspiracy theories, and all the other stuff SOME ASSOCIATED with Y2k, and that theme will be preserved in the new forum. I'm only interested in Y2k aftermath discussions...not spammers and folks who like to blame one person over the other. HARMLESS off-topic discussions will be a DEGREE.

I'd prefer not to engage in the LUSENET group formed simply because it's on MIT's server. I KNOW it's easier for many, but only because it's what you've always known.

Here it is [if I ever figure out how to manage it]:

People ARE People...Y2k Aftermath

BTW, I'm oldnovice. We're never too old to learn new stuff.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 03, 2000.

As M. Taylor suggested that SYSOPS just post the banned list, and the reasons why. That's a good idea. It would surely explain things better, and would provide some of us with new discussion material. Surely Flint and Y2K Pro weren't the only socially incorrect, bad boys, or girls that were banned. Could you just tell me so I won't have to go register. I don't give out my real email address as liberal haters are even nastier on email. BTW, was Liberal Hater banned? Just curious.

-- gilda (, March 03, 2000.

I agree with both Gilda and Jonathan. I have lifted the password requirement from the EZBOARD site I created. We'll deal with the Contrail/conspiracy theorists later. In the meantime, THIS forum is going to be shut off VERY soon....even regarding responses to existing threads.

Try the link I posted above and we can continue this discussion there.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 03, 2000.

OK, then I'll respond quickly to anyone still hanging around listening.

For the time being, I've gone over to regular's TB2K spinoff uncensored board. I tried Anita's link, but it got me to some screen that said I needed to register and/or log in, but didn't seem to have any buttons to do so or take me anywhere. Reminded me of that old "hacker" game that came with NO documentation. You put the disk in the drive, booted, and up came a screen that said "Please Log In". And that was IT. Yer on Yer Own! Great concept for a hacker game, not so friendly for trying to get a better forum started.

I've encouraged quite a few people to join us on the "uncensored" LUSENET forum. I really don't want to see those who are somehow uncomfortable with thought police just vanish away, or get atomized among many different competing alternative sites. So as one lonely person I'm casting my immediate vote for LUSENET (sorry Anita) in the hopes that once we're all in one place, then we can all decide to move to a better place together.

And clearly some considerable work is being expended creating that forum, which I consider very encouraging. And Paul Davis showed up and wished us good luck, which is an omen if I ever saw one.

If people have a better idea and old slow-learning farts like me can pick up on it, please send me an email and let me know. I'm willing to settle anywhere good discussion is served.

-- Flint (, March 03, 2000.

I do want to thank SYOPS, Mr. Yourdon and the Me Too Sheeple for one thing. I have to give the program at our monthly Book Mavens meeting next month; I didn't have anything new to offer, but now I have it!

This is a perfect, personal example of banning people and their ideas who disagree with the current guru, his message, his guard dogs and his flock of sheeple. I've printed the 50 odd pages to use for my program.

Cheers. All you sensitive souls enjoy yourselves on your new forum, where you will never hear a discouraging word.

-- gilda (, March 03, 2000.

I understand, Flint. I fixed the problem I was having with the EZBOARD. If you click on the above link now you'll go right there.

The only problem I have with LUSENET is that it's still on MIT's server and at the whim of Phil [and the tax-payers who support it.] be HONEST, I don't know WHO supports the EZBOARD place.

I hate to see the reasonable folks splinter off, so will keep the EZBOARD forum available for a period. If no one comes, no problem. It didn't take long to set up. The time was spent in figuring out the mistakes I made in setting it up. [nothing new there, eh?]

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 03, 2000.

Anita, I still can't get into your board...I feel like such a Flint.

Night, all.

-- RC (, March 03, 2000.


Jonathan made it in. What problem did you have?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 03, 2000.


I'm having the same problem as Flint. No buttons to take me anywhere.

-- Debra (, March 03, 2000.

Flint, thanks for the help advertising I hope everyone will help me recapture the old atmosphere on TB2K, that is before it got out of control with certain nasty spammers.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (, March 03, 2000.

The Party Is Here!!!

-- cin (, March 03, 2000.

(Sorry, let me try this again)

Flint, thanks for the help advertising TB2K Spinoff Uncensored

I want to remind you all that everyone is welcomed, and I hope you'll at least stop in once. Ed is very welcomed, as are the sysops on his boards. Lets not forget the FRL gang even ;-)

Anita, EZboard has a very nasty hidden habit of inserting banner cookies at each thread you click. You won't notice this if you don't have "warn me before accepting cookies" enabled.

I hope everyone will help me recapture the old atmosphere on TB2K, that is before it got out of control with certain nasty spammers.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (, March 03, 2000.

"There are a couple sysops who feel that Flint -- and by extension, some (though perhaps not all) of the people whom we considered trouble-makers on the old Greenspun forum"

Bullshit, pure and simple. The only trouble that Flint ever made here was his different opinion on Y2K. Oh, he has made a few "wild" statements in the past, but I don't think any more than 1 per 1,000 of his posts. Many of the other "regulars" here are much more "out-of- control" than Flint. And like I said, most of us here have made at least a few remarks that we wish we could take back. I'm sure Y2K Pro has a complete record.

I guess I'm the real ass here. I went to other places, like the Yahoo Y2K forum, and GNIABFI, and stuck-up for our old "censorship" policy. I tried to explain to people that the LadyLogic, DoomersSuck, etc. problem was not censorship, but simply SPAM cleaning. Boy was I wrong.

I was asked recently if I wanted to be a sysop here. Up until a few days ago, I was giving it serious thought. After all, I do have what I consider many on-line friends here, including a few of the sysops, and a few of the "pollys" like Flint. And I do have experience in this area. I was a co-sysop on an old BBS, before the 'net became popular.

I'm sorry to say, but with this new "policy" on "our" new forum, not only am I no longer interested in being a sysop, I am no longer interested in participating here. Yea, it's probably going to hurt me more that it is you. Some may even be happy that Bruce is no longer posting. But it's more than just me. Look at this thread. This is a very unpopular decision. It will hurt the forum.

But I've got to stand up for what I think is right, and this just ain't right.

I luv ya all. Later, from # 7. Flint was #5.

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

PS - SYSOPS - Don't make me do this...

-- Sysman (, March 03, 2000.

The Human-Machine Assimilation Forum described above is located at Human%2dMachine%20Assimilation ============================= TRY ALSO THIS TOTALLY FREE AND OPEN .. FREE SPEECH PLACE Running%20on%20Empty%20%2d%20The%20Coming%20Petroleum%20Exhaustion%20Di eoff

-- aldo (, March 03, 2000.

OK Ed, thanks.

-- Hokie (, March 03, 2000.

Gotta agree with Sysman. Flint, you don't deserve such treatment. Period. Guess I'm off to greener pastures (or the uncensored forum)...

-- Steve (, March 04, 2000.


Lusenet has a way of sneaking those cookies in also.

I fixed the problem with the forum I set up, however. If nothing else, I learned a few things today. It's available for anyone to view or post at:

Peopl e are People Y2k Aftermath

I enjoy the flexibility of EZBOARD over Lusenet, but it's apparent others don't. It's fine if it never gets used much. There were only perhaps 1 in 100 threads on TB2000 that interested me. looks like we now have TOO MANY alternatives. Can there ever BE too many alternatives?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 04, 2000.

I also started a forum on ezboard -- the RefugeeBomb2000 forum.

The ezboard software is different, sure. But it's fantastic. You can SEARCH(!!!), you can browse the different fora EASILY, and you can EDIT your typos. (And, delete stuff you wish you hadn't posted *smile*.)

Anyone is welcome on RB2K so long as they don't abuse AFTER they're there. No "pre-ban" lists, no secret unwritten rules. And "abuse" doesn't mean anything other than ABUSE. In other words, spamming, threatening, stuff like that. Thinking "the wrong thing" or arguing with others is NOT considered "abuse".

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 04, 2000.

Cripes, let me try that again (grumble):


Oh, and another nice thing about the ezboard (really "The Ultimate BBS" software) is that you don't have to hand-tool your links. It automates the process.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (
chuck@u.farley), March 04, 2000.

Oh good grief, I give up. But, at least that last link works, ugly as it is.

Feel free to visit and participate as you like.

-- Charles Underwood Farley (chuck@u.farley), March 04, 2000.

Diane, Have taken said pill, feel better, lol.

OK, Steve, I withdraw the "hypocrite" label based on the book topic. Instead, I will state that you are intolerant of views other than your own, and the only speach I've ever seen you defend is your own, which may explain why you never had a real clue about y2k before the rollover. Feel better? :)

I recommend this to those who do not fear contrary opinions: TB2K spinoff uncensored - my thanks to whomever the honorable individual is who providing it.


-- (, March 04, 2000.

I tried the eZboard forum -- too cumbersome, plus when I delete my cookies and/or exit, all the settings needed to display the way I wanted, disappear, so got to do it all over.

So, I am gonna hang out awhile on the new (uncensored?) Greenspun forum at nsored

Take out the space in "unce nsored" in the URL when you paste it to the browser "Location:" (go to) window.

-- A (, March 06, 2000.

My what a good time we all 'had' !!!! I am sorry to see you leave sysman, you were the only sysop I liked besides Chuck.... But, I agree totally. As for me, I cant even figure out how to use the new board let alone participate...I betcha I'd of been banned to...seeing as though I stuck up for an old timer who got into a 'tiff' with the ever popular 'eve'.....hey, it WAS a great time, while it lasted....Bardou, Robert Cook, and all the others, i'll miss you terribly... Carrie

-- consumer (, March 08, 2000.

Hi Carrie (consumer),

Hey, we mixed it up a bit...I guess it's time to put it all behind us. And give the new forum a try. There are pros and cons to it, but once you learn what it can do, I think you'll like it.

And if there was ever a hint of banning you based on that run-in we had, and I found out about it, I know I'd fight for you...tooth and nail. I mean, I can't imagine you deserving it just from that.

Take care,

-- eve (, March 08, 2000.


Thanks. I admitt I can be a 'pain' at times, its my nature,but glad to see we can 4get about it.....I did go over there and use too shy, I think....Cant recall, old age, just turned 38 on Feb 25...!!! lol and gonna be a grandma...I like the old setup like we had here....old and doesnt like change.shame on me. cya there <<
-- consumer (, March 10, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ