Would everyone please follow this guideline for the subject of a new thread that is not related to Y2K, Y2K remedial, Y2K aftermath/glitches etc:

(OT)Request to all from the forum administrator

This would also apply to news articles that are not Y2K related, topics of interests/debates and FYI's etc.

We need to revert back to some sort of classification in new thread subjects, to make it easier on everyone.

Thank you all in advance for your cooperation.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech_y2k@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000

Answers

Why even worry about Y2K? Y2K is dead. Nothing left to talk about it. We're all sick of Y2K and don't want to read anymore about it. So, lets talk about other things that are more interesting.

-- snuggy (snuggy@aol.com), March 08, 2000.

Snuggy, guess the gas price going through the roof doesn't touch you. I hope it is a ruse, for a short time.

-- Kill Floor (in@pastlife.com), March 08, 2000.

Snuggy, because this forum's topic is TimeBomb2000 Spinoff.

The topic is Y2K related. If this subject does not interest you any longer, I suggest you look for a different forum with a more interesting topic, or use AOL's chat rooms.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 08, 2000.

Old TB,

May I suggest that whoever said, "I suggest you look for a different forum with a more interesting topic, or use AOL's chat rooms."

May know so much about Y2k that they're bored by it? (Most people who "got it" are.

-- (Just @trying.to help), March 09, 2000.

So solly,

Whoever said, "Why even worry about Y2K? Y2K is dead. Nothing left to talk about it."

May know so much they've moved on??

Maybe some here could learn from him, if he weren't asked to leave????

)Who knows, I don't.)

-- (Just@wondering. about it), March 09, 2000.

To me, The topic is Year2000TimeBomb!, EVERYTHING involved with possible EXPLOSION/IMPLOSION of our world.

But then it's not "MY" board....

-- 'lil (lilolme@dot.com), March 09, 2000.

SO LAME!!!!! But yes, if we must we must. To make a point, however, does anyone really need to be told whether any given topic IS or IS NOT cateogirzed by the poster as related to Y2K? And can't every reader simply look at the title of the post to get the gist of the meaning -- to wit, my latest "TAX ON IRISH CATTLE FARTS PROPOSED..." Well, it simply says it all, right? And no reader is illuminated one bit by a stuffy, superfluous (OT) in front of the title text, etc.

-- Squirrel Hunter (nuts@upina.cellrelaytower), March 09, 2000.

Alright then, here's what I'll do. I'll count the yah/nah on this thread sometime tomorrow, whenever I get back to it.

Whichever side has the most count wins.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

My reply above was sarcastic, in case it wasn't clear to all.

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

O'Tay panky.

-- ~***~ (~***~@earth.ebe), March 09, 2000.

Whatever, OTB2K. I'm mellow.

What makes it easier for me is when people post exact titles of news articles. I don't have time to read every new post, but I scan through the top 20 or so headers before I post a news story, and sometimes I end up reposting material because the headers are someone's opinion about a news topic.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

Old TB2K -- This board to me has morphed into a "TB2K" spinoff -- or anything that has to do with "time bomb" issues in the Year 2000. (Lots of time bombs this year, eh?) It spotlights many critical issues that we ... a diverse group of sign-posts and plotters on Other Side topics ... feel compelled to address, including original Y2K fixations.

The diversity may become more, rather than less, apparent.

But since you are father/mother and continuing savior of this both- sides forum, whatever works for you, works for me.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

Once, long ago, Y2K concerns caused me to return to these forums and TB2000 in particular, and OT helped in the hunt. However I reckon the non-Y2K subject matter causes me to return again and make contributions. Thus, in the interest of Down Under thinking I believe that if a Y2K subject is posted here, well, it ought to be tagged OT.. This makes perfect sense to me due to my latitute.

Regards,

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), March 09, 2000.

ok...I am really trying to understand this request. This is what I'm getting so far. Forum moderator would like us to place an 'OT' in front of topics that are not directly related to Y2k. That would mean that nearly all of the topics are 'OT'.

Am I getting this right?

Someone please help this ditzy blonde. =o)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

It's ok, it will give Flint something to start another huge debate about, and all the Flint ass-kissers will be happy to applaud him. Now there will be a lot more threads accusing people of posting subjects that are not related to Y2K without using the OT label, so it will make the forum appear much busier.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), March 09, 2000.

I will say it again: Y 2 K =Year 2000, right???This is the Year 2000,isnt it??So,how can anything happening right now be OT ??

-- Elsie (mooo@mooo.momo), March 09, 2000.

Here is my informal "OT" classification system:
1) Overseas Topic - International Trade, Foreign Policy, World events
2) Oil Topic - Production, shipping, pricing, and consumption
3) Orb Topic - Solar events (flares, CME, space weather)

Still looking for good "O" words to use for Banking/Wall Street items. (grin)
I try to post articles that inform us about "possible impacts" to our lives. The "Big Picture" of increasing instability in the world bothers me, I do believe that positive changes can be made. Of course, some problems we now "hear about" have been around all along, the Internet just makes it possible for us to receive the information.

I am still doing Y2k coding work, I would rather talk about anything else but programming problems. (getting my focus off the particular module I'm working on actually helps my mind work on the problems)

-- Possible Impact (posim@hotmail.com), March 09, 2000.

Hawk...your mother didn't show you much love when you were a child, did she? I thought not.

I almost feel sorry for you.

(Ok...I realize this is a new low, I just couldn't stop myself) sorry

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 09, 2000.

Whatever suits you Old Regular. I like reading about the aftermath of Y2K, but I do think it helps to have OT topics marked OT. Glad you're doing this forum.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 09, 2000.

Shouldn't ALL threads have "OT" on them, since Y2K is pretty much a cold stinking corpse?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 09, 2000.

I vote just create a headline that is easy to scan.

The 'OT' is just clutter.

-- semper paratus (back_here_with@my.pals), March 09, 2000.

SH and Semper you BOTH know better than that. NO title worth it's salt ever tells the story around here.

And NO I Still rent my foingers.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 10, 2000.

Part of what made the old forum, was the variety of topics that were discussed. Yes, many were directly related to Y2K. But some were kinda, sorta, Y2K topics, and some were really out there in left field. Usually, you can tell from the headline what a particular thread started out as. And even then, it usually has gone OT after a few posts.

I'm turning more pollyish with each passing day. I think that the "mass" of Y2K is behind us. There really is less and less Y2K related information to discuss. Yea, we can talk about oil and such, and wheather Y2K is a factor or not. But let's face it, even if the world is having Y2K problems, the lawyers age going to do their best to keep it quiet.

I hang here, and on the other forum, and on the old forum, because I like the people here (and there). I like the ideas that are exchanged. I like our "up to the minute" conversations on, well, everything...

OT is just a waste of screen space. We all know what's going on here...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 10, 2000.

Sysman, I just have to know: Are those fangs? ;o)=

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 10, 2000.

cin:

Sysman is trying to tell us he's a pencil-necked geek.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 10, 2000.

Just so you know, I never had any delusions about the kind of forum THIS is ;-) Until I get a bomb threat to get the OT rule instated, I guess I'll just have to let it drop.

Chuck, so good to see you here! But careful with those "you know better than that" admonitions, many people here now are finding out that they didn't know notin' about notin' ;-)

-- Old TB2K forum regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 10, 2000.

No cin, it's my beard. It just doesn't look good in this font... The < is, well was, my long hair. I guess I look more like this, at least for now, but I've got a rep to maintain:

(:)=

And Flint, I'll take the geek part, but watch it with that pencil- necked stuff! LOL...

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 10, 2000.

hmmm...I had it right about the = being a beard, but I always thought the < was a dunce cap, and isn't the ( on top of the : as eyes, the symbol for an egghead?

So all this time, I thought you were a dunce egghead with a goaty ;^)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 10, 2000.

LOLOL You guys crack me up!

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 10, 2000.

Chris, a dunce? I always thought that you liked me... <:(=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 10, 2000.

Everyone likes you Sysman. How could they not? =o)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 11, 2000.

In case you're not pulling my leg and took it seriously Sysman, I was teasing you, and the wink and smirk - ;^) - was my way of letting you know that.

Now gimme a smile ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 11, 2000.

Just label the y2k topics Y2K. What's the problem?

Then there will be less typing to be done. Or not.

-- Silly Rabbit! (trix@are.for.kids), March 11, 2000.

I know Chris. I'm just doing a little teasing myself. <:)))=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), March 11, 2000.

Hi good to see ya Chuck and Sys....BTW, what is the decision again? ----consumer is confused and shaking her dyed head....LOL

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 11, 2000.