I'm surprised that I am banned from the EZBoard. I registered a couple of weeks ago and received a password, tested it out and it worked. Apparently I was spotted by the Gestapo and removed. I was at TB2000 intermittently and my main crime appears to be questioning some of their tactics and a few rips here and there.

Now, apparently they are posting pictures of themselves there, as if anyone would give a shit what they looked like. I'd like to see one of Old Goat: I'm willing to believe that she looks like a dried-up catfish with breasts. Question: Where does Old Git generally go to the bathroom? Answer: Depends

It appears that they have who they want on the EZBoard bus and they have closed the doors. Of course, they had to cut down on the amount of people, since the bus is of the small, yellow variety.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), March 13, 2000

Answers

"she looks like a dried-up catfish with breasts. Question: Where does Old Git generally go to the bathroom? Answer: Depends"

CJS, honestly, it's comments like that, and comments like this:

http://206.28.81.29/HyperNews/get/gn/2080.html

" Time for LadyLogic to go."

"GO FUCK YOURSELF"

That start these battles. Not you, or anyone else tells me what to do, and you just create anonymosity, when you flame people.

I've done it, you've done it; this bullshit has to stop, Ok?

~*~

-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 13, 2000.

I think we should keep from stooping and posting about'EZ board'. I understand the frustrations, but let's not keep this going.

The best revenge is to just "Let it go", and relax and have fun. =o)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

Great minds talk about ideas;

Mediocre minds talk about events;

Small minds talk about people.

-- (@ .), March 13, 2000.

And now a small mind is concerned for all of us:

yourdon Administrator (3/13/00 1:29:09 pm) Reply

Re: Lady Logic spamming TB2k spinoff board ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Well, whoever it is, it's obviously a disruption to the community. The tradeoffs between anonymity and accountability on a public discussion forum are very subtle and difficult; and the distinction between exercising free speech and being a public nuisance can also be a subtle one.

I sympathize with the spinoff-board sysops, for it puts them in the same quandary that we were faced with on the old TBY2K Greenspun forum.

Ed

-- The Shadow (shadow@knows.com), March 13, 2000.

As if......the best way to handle it is to let it go...IMHO are moderator/sysop, is doing a WONDERFUL job at keeping things to a dull roar. If we dont resort to the level and talk about each other, all will die down, if not;;;;Keep on doing what you always do, and you keep on getting what you always got.

===got it?

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

[the distinction between exercising free speech and being a public nuisance can also be a subtle one.]

So Hoffmeister, Latimer and I are public nuisances? I guess we need Big Dog's sense of sublety to see this.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2000.

"The best revenge is to just "Let it go", and relax and have fun"

This reoccurence is an insignificant ripple that will disappear,if we stop throwing rocks in the pond.

Let the ez go their way and forget about it.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 13, 2000.

Flint:

The tradeoffs between anonymity and accountability on a public discussion forum are very subtle and difficult; and the distinction between exercising free speech and being a public nuisance can also be a subtle one.

Seems to me that it says that. If you just hadnt been anonymous there would have been no problems :o). How can you use subtle two times in one sentence?

Best wishes,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

Success is the best revenge... or so they say. The best course of action is to keep this forum informative, useful and open. Over time, EZBOARD will become an ever smaller group of people telling one another how wonderful they are... and giving praise unto Yourdon. Hey, folks, let Yourdon have his small cult of personality. The censorship policy makes it clear Yourdon and pals do not want discourse or reasoned debate. It is a not a forum, in the true sense, but simply a social web site where like-minded people gather. As Flint would aptly observe, they are church... we are a university.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 13, 2000.

Sorry you're banned from the EZ board Flint.

Sure is fun to come over here and kick the old ant hill though.

heh heh

-- heh (heh@heh.heh), March 13, 2000.

I sympathize with the spinoff-board sysops, for it puts them in the same quandary that we were faced with on the old TBY2K Greenspun forum.

I appreciate the sentiment but it's not the same quandary.

This board has one quandary - spammers.

TBY2k old board New Regime had two quandaries - 1- spammers, and 2- ideas it didn't like. There is a difference but unfortunately the boundaries between these two were never perceived, and never drawn at all clearly.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 13, 2000.

Debbie,

This board will progress just as the last one did. Decker is already in a tizzy over what to do about the spam attack. Next, the sysop will be obliged to remove pornographic references and harsh profanity. From there, give it about a year or so (as with the old TB) and then you will understand how "Shit Happens"

-- (@ .), March 13, 2000.

Ken:

As Flint would aptly observe, they are church... we are a university.

In my experience it is not necessary to put words into Flint's mouth :o). Cheers.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

Next, the sysop will be obliged to remove pornographic references and harsh profanity.

Gosh, I hope not. Hawk's posts are always good for a laugh or three.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 13, 2000.

@:

Debbie has nailed it. They never could see any distinction between disagreement and spam.

However, on reflection (try it sometime) you should realize that the "disease" Ed was trying to cure wasn't quite as he described it. When censorship causes backlash, the workable solution is to eliminate the censorship, not step it up. If you were looking for some way to eliminate the expression of opinions deleterious to your income sources, without making yourself look stupid directly, what would you do? How about appointing censors, encouraging them to shoot themselves in the foot, expressing "dismay" at the problems *someone else* caused (!), and moving to new software that let you shut those dangerous opinions up completely.

And if many complain, you tell them to shut up as well, and claim that explaining your behavior "serves no useful purpose" while carefully not mentioning WHOSE purpose is not served. This works great every time, leaving you with a much smaller but much more devout congregation.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2000.

"This works great every time, leaving you with a much smaller but much more devout congregation. "

No, it allows them to discuss issues they deem important while being almost free of spammers, trolls, and disgruntled troublemakers (anthill kickers) such as yourself.

Seems to be working, too.

-- (@ .), March 13, 2000.

I appreciate Ed's sympathy, but they are unfounded. I am the only sysop, and so far I have deleted a grand total of 4 imposter-troll threads (being careful to delete only those with no replies from different people) since I started it.

To me, freespeech and annoyance have clear cut differences.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 13, 2000.

heh (heh@heh.heh):

Hokie; it is ok to use your real posting name. No one here will bite you.

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

@:

I agree, it's working just fine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2000.

"Heh," I hope Flint is proud to have earned the distinction.

"Dit," a suggestion hardly constitutes a "tizzy." The sysop is not obliged to remove anything... I simply suggested a policy of deleting repetitive posts might make the board more readable. I hope the new sysop can avoid some of the many mistakes made by the sysops of the former TB 2000 board. Of course, it helps NOT to be chosen by Ed Yourdon as a sacred guardian. And it helps not have a very specific agenda to forward. You sound rather like "a." Could it be? Do you think we were better off in 1973? (laughter)

As for the church over at EZBOARD... it's just a group of people who have decided not to listen to anyone who does not agree with them. It isn't a question of courtesy. Russ Lipton and Old Git were often rude; and folks like Hoffman were uniformly courteous. It's a cult of personality with Ed Yourdon as the titular head.

As a libertarian (of sorts), I'm tolerant of most human activity, including cults. The people over at EZBOARD are not hurting anyone. It's just a electronic social club where the members (and sysops) can float their ideas (no matter how silly) without the painful interjection of rationality.

Like many cults, the Yourdonites feel they are sane (or saved) and the rest of the world is crazy (or lost). This is not remarkable in terms of human behavior. Fortunately, the folks at EZBOARD are not influening anything but one another. It's a group of anonymous, disaffected middle class Americans....

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 13, 2000.

"Dried-up Catfish with breasts". Stop, you're killing me, ROTFLMAO

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), March 13, 2000.

Maybe so Ken. But it seems to me that threads like these, with heavy input from the sails of you and Flint, are precisely the reason you folks were banned from the lastest incantation of Ed's board. They were ready to move on - without some of the unruly children.

A "dried-up catfish with breasts" you say? Imagine that.

-- (@ .), March 13, 2000.

For grownups ready to leave childish things behind, the censorites seem to visit here surprisingly often, and always to criticize people rather than discuss issues. Recidivism? Maybe they're not quite as ready to move on as you think.

But they're certainly welcome here. When we choose to discuss where doomers come from, it's very helpfl to have an object lesson always handy.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2000.

@,

I hope that when you say that "Great minds talk about ideas....Small minds talk about people" you are not inferring that their are great minds talking about ideas over at TB2000 EZBoard.

Great minds don't create fear, uncertainty, and doubt and talk about far-fetched ideas.

Mediocre minds may talk about events, but they don't generally adjust or spin them to fit their theories without reasonable evidence.

Small minds will censor the views of others.

Many minds, great, mediocre, and small, engage in profitable marketing opportunities.

Also, stop kidding yourself. It is a church over there.

-- CJS (cjs@noemail.com), March 13, 2000.

The venom that exists between the two boards is quite surprising to me. I chose to post at this board after a short retirement precisely because it was touted as Uncensored. The old TB2K, before deletions were common, was a wonderfully mentally engaging place to be. When I came upon this place it had the same free-for-all feel to it, and since Ken Decker saw fit to leave early retirement I figured I may as well add my two cents as too. Im glad I did.

But I can also understand the wish to have a board where folks of a like mind are free from distractions. If one chooses to participate in a forum about cats, wading through tons of posts about sea- monsters is a pain in the rear. We here should not begrudge them their choice anymore than they should begrudge ours.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 13, 2000.

Unlike many, "dit," I contributed "across the board" during the Y2K debate including specific advice on preparation issues. Unlike many, I was intellectually honest... challenged individuals (and ideas) on both sides. My work speaks for itself... as do my (mostly) polite responses to countless personal attacks.

And Ed Yourdona and Company cannot "ban" me... my principles will not allow me to participate in a closed community with exclusivity and censorship as its guiding values.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 13, 2000.

@,

Flint and Ken aren't the only people on this board stating their opinions.Seems to me that everyone here is pretty laid back about it overall,the loudest squalks are coming from ez and one confessed, blatant ant hill kicker.

The only reason the majority of us are here in the 1st place is the cesorship issue.I don't know what everyone else thinks but I thought the whole reason to change BBS software and sites was to better control the "REAL" rowdies/vandals,not exclude those whom with which you simply disagreed.

Again,IF IT CAN HAPPEN TO THEM IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU" IMHO.

I would rather wade through a thousand spam posts to get to something unfiltered and unmodified than to cowtow to those that would take anyones free expresion away.I'd rather kill the internet and gather at the town square,I thought the I-net was THE BASTION of free thought,Ed makes it a joke.

All I want "is to get as far away as I can get from the ezb"; and all for one reason "CENSORSHIP".

It is deleted from my bookmarks because it is no longer worthy.I am not referencing the posters,just the site.

Maybe anyone who feels likewise about spinoff should do the same.

Live and let live or drop in and just be cool.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 13, 2000.

@, I think that in a year, TB Spinoff will either not be here because people moved on from discussing Y2k Aftermath, or it will be here discussing mostly other things. It may still be having the usual flareups of spam which come and go. Like a pimple if you are horrified and attack it, it gets red, inflamed and infected. If you leave it alone, it just comes and goes.

Yes it's possible that this forum could be overtaken by hopeless garbage, making it useless (terminal case of acne). (It wouldn't be the first time e.g. some Usenet newsgroups.) If so, then so be it. People will always find a way to create new communities. I'm here mostly for my interest in the y2k aftermath and discussions. Being caught up in something for two and a half/three years tends to unwind slowly. I'm sure a year from now I'll be willing and eager to "give it a rest" - probably long before then! But I don't know what others would like for the forum - can't say, it's quite open ended. So is the new one as Unc D. points out - at least WRT topics, and only IF you weren't part of its history.

In contrast, TB #1 was based on a conversation which was both time-limited and extremely polarized, and in the end failed to manage itself because basically it was unconscious of the dynamics. It's the underlying dynamics which were driving it to censor itself. The dynamics were that Y2k was looking much better, as date after date of cascading non-events were passing, and the forum (represented by its new moderators, most of whom were ardent Y2k-ers) didn't want to face this.

I thought of trying to say this differently or to be less opinionated, but it's my opinion, so why beat around the bush? It's why it was relatively easy, even convenient, to censor ideas and people along with the spam and justify not making the distinction.

Maybe the seeds of destruction were built into the original stated purpose of the forum. Challengers to TB2000 kept being presented, by regulars, with Ed's statement about TB2000's purpose, which was that it was for fallback planning by those who had already decided that Y2k would be bad. So, officially, it was a utilitarian forum, like one about gardening, or automobile repair. But in reality, it was not. I'd say at least 50% of our posts back then (1998- early 1999) were on highly inflammatory, controversial topics, and we welcomed this and at least tolerated opposing views plus the sheer idiocy that also came and went.

Anyway it was a unique pivot point in time. This coupled with Ed's policy at that time being hands off, it's what made the place alive, alongside the "what is a food-grade bucket" type of discussion. The point is, the very premise of Y2k was a controversial one which was bound to draw all manner of points of view. It was based on a *prognostication*, how could it not be controversial? This was unavoidable but as long as it was cloudy out and the Y2k future was dim and unseeable, the shades could be kept up. But when the sun started to shine, Ed backed out and the moderators had to decide whether to let the sun shine in or draw the shades. They drew the shades. So it's understandable why the prep forum was created, to preserve the utilitarian purpose while the rest of it slowly went off into the murky confusion of a closed system of ideas.

Frankly it was a shock to me at the time, and it's why I left that forum when I did (June). It was the threads about "R.C." that were the last straw. I hated the polarization, but this was too much. I had nursed a fantasy that the polarization was coming from the other side, i.e the "polly" or non-doomers. (I guess this is typical for when you belong to a controversial group which you have a lot of allegiance with. You think that the problem people are "out there"). The wish to believe is often many times stronger than the ability to honestly observe reality, and there was no reality here, just more polarization, now coming from a point of view of censoring the other side. That's what made the difference.

As a bit of an aside for those of discussing how we got into the Y2k prepping mindset, it's ironic to me that "open mindedness" had been one of the hooks for me into Y2k fear. My feelings had been "I am just being open minded about this." Further I would think, "You polly types are the ones who are being rigid and only considering one point of view, whereas we are the ones who are open to all the different possibilities." Yourdon's book with all the different scenarios was very flattering to us "open-minded" types, luring you down the garden path to "make up your own mind"! The real pitfall was that I stopped looking for verification of any assumptions to back up the idea that "Y2k is a problem" once I decided that the task to do so was too overwhelming and I couldn't know (since "nobody knows") and decided I would be covered if I just hunkered down and prepared for all of the scenarios that I could. A further pitfall is that you can't maintain such a supposedly "non-commital" position over time without it messing with your head. You are really being "commital" while telling yourself that you're not being.

But talking about this is definitely veering off into a different topic. Suffice it to say that when censorship came, it was June 1999 and these cozy notions which I had about "Something is happening here, it's we who have an open line to the truth here" came undone all the more quickly.

In short @ "that was then, this is now".

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 13, 2000.

Debbie,

That was a remarkable post. I suggest you re-post it as a new thread. It deserves its own discussion.

I agree with your insight about the sysops and the regular pessimists. Having taken a failing position, they entrenched. Given the ridicule and gloating of some "pollies," one cannot entirely blame them. The intellectually honest stepped forward. The rest retreated to a closed community.

As for the forum "purpose," it was impossible to discussion Y2K preparation outside of discussing the probabilities and ranges of impact. I never understood why this was a difficult point.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 13, 2000.

Folks:

I have an embarrassing confession to make [it is a good thing that I am leaving town; as mentioned earlier; it will give time for the shame to die down]. I never read Eds book. Actually, Ive never seen a copy. Have any of you?

Best wishes,,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2000.

Interesting commentary, Deb. I came in just as you were going out......June of 1999. I really have no comparison as to how the forum was before my entry, except the posts I've read from the archives and the archived posts that were presented for my review by those who were since banned for so doing.

Z: I never even HEARD of Yourdon before I began to follow Y2k on the internet. I understand that he's written several books, but I've never read ANY of them. It seems to me that only those NOT in the computer field had any interest in them, and that INCLUDES the ones that were computer oriented. IRL, I know of ONE person who recognizes the Yourdon name. He's a recruiter and was quite shocked when he learned that Ed was a "doomer."

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 13, 2000.

Wow, Deb,

That was an outstanding post. I think it deserves more than it's own thread, I think it should be submitted to a magazine.

Anita had a link to a magazine article yesterday, maybe you could submit it there? It would be a shame to waste all of that insight on just the few of us.

~*~

-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 13, 2000.

Flint, "Big Dog's sense of subtlety...???" Ah yes, Big Dog, about as subtle as an elephant with the farts!

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 13, 2000.

Anita, by June 1999 the forum had gone through some major changes. Those who were certain that a hoax was being perpetrated had become much more vocal and assertive in their stated position. Likewise, those who leaned over to the pessimistic side were quick to carve up any doubters. Mixed in were a completely new breed of extremists that brought a fiery apocalypse to the table based on a variety of evils such as the NWO, UN takeovers, and the Rapture of the week. Its to be expected that we are talking about who was right and who was wrong. This was a selective group that had gathered with Y2K as the foundation for our being. Now, we will have to seek a new glue to hold all of us together for the foreseeable future.

-- Sifting (through@the.ready), March 13, 2000.

Deb,

The core of the problem is that the folks that were banned from EZ board felt humiliated.

That is it in a nutshell.

They can rant all they want about "censorship", but you don't find them protesting the heavily moderated formats of the hundreds of other closed forums that abound on the net.

However, "That was then; this is now" is a good point.

"Then", the possibility of impending disaster made it important to limit trolling and spamming by known troublemakers. Now that the danger has passed, it doesn't. This forum has nowhere near the significance of the pre-y2k TB.

"Then", it made sense to not turn the forum into a separate, private community. Now apparently, it does. There is no law that says Ed Yourdon must host a site for malcontents to bitch about, as Flint and Decker claim, what a scam artist he is.

This is a case when there is no "right" answer. It was time for the forum to split, and it was accomplished pretty gracefully IMHO.

-- (@ .), March 13, 2000.

"This forum has nowhere near the significance of the pre-y2k TB."

And, what the hell was that???

It was significant only in it's ability to scare the bejeesus out of people with it's one-sidedness.

~*~

-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 13, 2000.

Beg to differ @,

Feels more like an ugly divorce, with a couple of obvious combatants & loads of collateral damage.

-- flora (***@__._), March 13, 2000.

--

Why am I not surprised that the very clear distinction between censorship and heavy moderation seems to escape you?

I participate on heavily moderated forums, and in fact I'm a part- time moderator of one of them. I see all submissions, and I get to decide which ones are suitable for posting. Some are off-topic, and I get to explain this offline. Some contain errors of fact (this is a highly technical forum, and the "facts" come straight out of the product data sheets), and I've been thanked for snagging careless errors before the world gets to laugh at them.

But all posts are considered on the basis of content alone, NEVER on the basis of who submitted them. It's baffling that *anyone* would close a forum to individual people regardless of what they might have to contribute. This isn't moderation, this is simple vindictiveness, venal resentment from having been wrong. Your idea of humiliation is on the right track, but going the wrong direction. We are seeing, at least in part, proof of the *censors'* humiliation.

I also recognize that heavy moderation is not suitable for any sort of free-for-all discussion. In the first place, posts can take many hours to show up. In the second place, traffic must either be fairly low or you need a LOT of moderators, since pre-screening all posts is very time consuming. And in the third place, the quality of the forum, in the eyes of its participants, depends on the quality of the moderation. A heavy hand can damage discussion as seriously as a light one. Heavy moderation seems most suitable for very specialized and structured subjects, of little interest to the average semiliterate loony with a guaranteed uninformed opinion.

Anyway, the different forums are quite properly taking on personalities of their own, providing a clear choice of ambience for those the censors permit to choose. Rather quickly, these two forums have diverged so there's only small overlap.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2000.

Rather quickly, these two forums have diverged so there's only small overlap.

And that is a sad thing. For despite the virulence on both sides of the issue of Y2K, many folks on both sides were capable of engaging in insightful, interesting dialog. I'm afraid that because of the split, either forum will attain only half of it's potential for interesting debate, and both sides are the poorer for it.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 13, 2000.

So what Flint is saying then, might explain this post from Will Continue on Ezboard (and perhaps explain some other things as well.)

"Subject: Re: Oh, Come on, Nadine, show some gump-shun Posted By: Will Continue (Global user) Posted At: 3/8/00 12:04:44 am From IP: Reply I must admit, Lisa, that I have occasionally feared that my new environment might actually make me courteous. The thought gives me chills. As long as it doesn't begin to effect my ability to sleep, I'll muddle through but I may need to zip over once in awhile for a venom fix, if you know what I mean."

-- (not@telling.noway), March 13, 2000.

Unc,

I agree. I'm disheartened by the turn of events.

For those of you who oughta know better, two wrongs still don't make a right. There's more here than your target; maybe we did harbor honest feelings about censorship.

I had the feeling at times that the old forum was a sum greater than its parts. Call me a cockeyed optimist.

-- flora (***@__._), March 13, 2000.

"It was significant only in it's ability to scare the bejeesus out of people with it's one-sidedness."

The majority of posters on TB, polled in early-99, predicted an economic depression as the most likely outcome, as did the forum creator Ed Yourdon.

Suprisingly, in the same time period, Flint, who now bellows proudly with oneupmanship, was one of those with a more pessimistic bend. Flint, we're ready to for that link to "Flint's Take".

-- (@ .), March 13, 2000.

@, I have a different recollection. Until moderation came about, there were as many optimists as there were pessimists. Ashtrays were flying, trolls were dancing under the tables and were biting ankles, moderates chatted quietly in the corner, and intellectual optimists and pessimists together held very interesting debates in front of the fireplace; and all in all it was a wild and fun party.

The atmosphere then wasn't "the majority of the posters predicted an economic depression as the most likely outcome", but more like "no one knows". Ed Yourdon though, was ofcourse predicting it.

Many of the more sensible pessimists who posted regularly then, have disapeared from both Ezboard and here now. Have they moved on, or are they posting under different names? Many sensible optimists have disapeared also.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 13, 2000.

Ahem,

So what if he was a big time doomer a year ago. We all were!

Flint became far more moderate later, and he didn't charge anything for his opinion, as I recall.

We were damn lucky to have him around then, and we still are. You people lost out BIG time when you banned him.

One woman's trash is another woman's treasure. Flint is our treasure now.

Have a nice night, and please spare us any cut & pasting. All that does is waste your time and bore us.

~*~

-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 13, 2000.

Dit ("a"),

I will never know if I am "banned" from EZB, because I will never request access. In fact, I recently posted a defense of EZB on this forum. While I think very little of Yourdon and his acolytes, I certainly acknowledge their right to have a private club.

I do object to the characterization of someone like Ted Hoffman as a "known troublemaker." Let's be honest here. The real reason Ted Hoffman (and others) are banned is because they disagree with Yourdon and the EZB crowd. Flint or Hoffman were not even allowed a chance to "behave" at EZB. I imagine the sysops over at EZB are still sulking because Flint, Hoffman and others were right about Y2K. And they know we remember the ridiculous predictions they made last year. And they know we'll apply logic and critical thinking to most of the half-baked ideas we see.

As for the "signficance" of TB 2000... it didn't have any. Zero. The forum made no difference in the Y2K debate. The KIA ads had far more influence than the nearly 400,000 posts on the old forum.

Flint... I'm guessing "Dit" is "a." Take a wager?

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 14, 2000.

Deb and sifting:

Now that I think back, I was quite active on the MSNBC Year 2000 Issues forum in 1998. We had several posters come in who had TRIED the Yourdon forum but were flamed off the forum. [Their words....NOT mine.] It seems that even then one was only encouraged to stay if thoughts didn't conflict with disaster being obvious.

These folks were concerned, but not scared. Dennis Olson might remember a poster who used the handle PA on the MSNBC board. She had come here first.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 14, 2000.

@, I'm with you. I think the split was a good thing. I don't want to be on any forum than censors unpopular posts, because they don't follow the majority opinion of the most vocal.

It may seem to some like a divorce, but sometimes one has to get a divorce to get out of an intolerable situation.

Flint, I too think this board is doing just fine, and I'm sure it will be going strong for a long time. It's in a little period of adjustment right now, just like moving to a new home, but most folks on here will turn to other topics and feel free to express their opinions. They will not fear being banned, beaten to a cyber pulp or deleted.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 14, 2000.

Sure, a year and a half (or more) before rollover, I was fairly pessimistic. That's why I came here in the first place -- I felt an honest case could be built for genuine problems without needing to resort to the systematic disinformation so commonly found here. And most here agree that as time went on and good news poured in, as nothing happened on any spike dates, as Bad Things remained completely speculative (and the speculators dwindled to those with the most obvious vested interests), I gradually came to decide it wouldn't be bad after all. The signs just weren't there, and as it got later in the game those signs should have become overwhelming.

So I find this repeated request that my starting point be posted to be very interesting. Apparently 'a' (yes, Ken, the technique looks very familiar) simply cannot comprehend the notion of learning. In his world, one picks a fixed position and can only defend it more and more dishonestly as evidence for that position evaporates. The alternative requires the unthinkable -- that you change your mind to fit the facts rather than vice versa.

As it is, I *still* expected far worse than we got, and was very surprised when essentially *nothing* happened. One reason I'm here is to understand just what did and did not happen. Too bad we had no controls, no major banks, agencies, manufacturers etc. who did nothing just to see how much trouble they'd have had. Nor (I suspect) will we ever know, since the issue in much of the world (and even in much of the US) was taken in stride as a normal maintenance problem, with no more publicity than any other such problem.

So I find "dit's" implicit conviction that learning is not possible to be ironic. But he does indeed illustrate the belief 'a' did so often, that the best way to look good is to try to make others look bad, whether it's true or not.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2000.

uh...where's that URL Flint?

-- (@ .), March 14, 2000.

"But he does indeed illustrate the belief 'a' did so often, that the best way to look good is to try to make others look bad, whether it's true or not."

Uh, did I mention that the concept of "learning" is foreign to him?

"dit", if your goal is to be as deliberately misleading as possible, you'll have to do your own homework. Sure, my original position was mistaken. Unlike you, I'm not married to my mistakes. I'm not banned for being wrong, you know. I'm banned for figuring that out.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2000.

@:

Has it occurred to you that you could search for the link YOURSELF? Flint is under NO obligation to search for what is only important to YOU.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 14, 2000.

No, in YOUR mind that's why you're banned. In Yourdon's mind, you're banned because your posts are disassociative, you admitted to being a trolling anthill kicker, you spew venom on the forum creator, and they don't want to deal with your ilk.

Now post the thread in question so that readers may dissect your pomposity at their discretion.

-- (@ .), March 14, 2000.

Flint, touche. The ability to learn separates you from the rabble. Actually, I always felt there were going to be some modest problems on rollover... I simply resisted the collapse of civilization theory. My own "preps" were quite modest... and more than sufficient. I'm always ready for the infamous "three day storm." The preparedness, however, is not simply the result of a modest lifestyle... not a commitment to the Church of Yourdon (or Hyatt or North or Lord).

As for "Dit," I'm now quite convinced its our old pal "a." He was beaten so soundly after the "life is worse now than in 1973" thread, he's chosen a "new" handle. (laughter) Pssst... Flint, do you think he'll take the bait? Don't worry, "a." No matter how many times you change your name, we'll always recognize your warped logic and turgid prose.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 14, 2000.

I have met Flint in real life. Flint treated the Y2K debate as a serious issue though I think he realized his participation in the TB 2000 was not going to have any impact on Y2K. Given the forum, it was highly unlikely he would change anyone's mind. On some level, Flint enjoyed poking holes in the doomsayers arguments. (aka "kicking the anthill.) I cannot say that I blame him. The Y2K pessimists were overbearing, smug in the conviction they were right and EVERYONE else was wrong. How many times did we see another version of the post, "Why are pollies so stupid?" How many times did we see a link to Steve Heller's resume? Or see Russ Lipton dismiss the Y2K optimists as "dense" or "dishonest?" [In fairness, I found a few optimists (like Charles Reuben) equally obnoxious.]

While Flint (and others) may have enjoyed the debate with the doomsayers, I do not think it the only reason he participated. In fact, when Flint suggested the main reason I stayed on TB 2000 was my own pleasure in "kicking anthills," I disagreed.

It was rarely "enjoyable" to post on the forum where every reasonable post met a torrent of personal attacks. There were moments of satisfication... when I felt I had made an important point, or dissembled a particularly foolish pessimist contention. My goal, however, was not to torment the serious pessimists... but to represent an alternative viewpoint for those who had been bullied off open participation in the forum. I never felt a Steve Heller or Russ Lipton would acknowledge my work... before or after rollover. I was there for those who did not post, but did let me know via email they appreciated the alternative viewpoint.

In retrospect, I think "kicking the anthill" was the wrong choice of words. That suggests Flint (or others) were simply engaged in the debate to play with a group of "lessers." I think a more compelling reason (though I'm not sure Flint will admit to it) was the simple desire to not let the bullies run roughshod... at least not without some resistance. I don't like bullies, particularly those who hide behind an anonymous handle. And I did feel gratified that the forum bullies were not able to give me (or others) the bum's rush.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 14, 2000.

Ken,

Of course, my intention with that post was to pull your leg, to engage in some good-natured teasing about the general style and character of your posts.

So I have to laugh at those who seem so determined to extract only a *portion* of that post, entirely out of context, from another forum, and "decide" that their careful misinterpretation is the truth, and the 20+ months of effort grappling with the issue were the falsehood. Talk about a flimsy pretext!

Beyond that, I doubt you can really demonstrate a different (and more valid) viewpoint without making those who ACT stupid LOOK stupid. I tried to explain this in a better context on Bill Schenker's Part 3 thread. Interesting that nobody commented, eh?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2000.

Ken, Flint,

All I have to say is that it is their loss on the EZ board for not having your train of thought and reasoning in the mix of their "debate". I follow your posts and read them carefully, and always come away the richer for the experience. Regards gentlemen...

(Flint I hope you are a gentleman, if not, will gentlewoman suffice? There was much discussion in the "old days" last year regarding gender of some of the more "ardent" posters... At one point I was thought to be a woman... Ah, NO... I couldn't remember with you though. Anyway, regards...)

Keep up the good posts...

loungin' on the porch, in the the SUN...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.

Flint, the reference to "dit" confuses me. Is "dit" @ or a?

Anyhow, "@"'s showing an incredibly dug-in, closed-mind, illogical made-for-cult personality.

Just how he can state in one breath his certainty of what Yourdon was thinking (does he know what I'm thinking now?), and dismissing the logical reasons given shows either a great lack of reasoning, or someone with a motive to mislead from the real reason.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 14, 2000.

Dog, thanks... and I'll let Flint establish "his" gender. (chuckle) Even if EZB opened up, I'm not sure I have the energy or interest to bump heads with the usual suspects. And Flint, you should know bettere than to demonstrate a sense of humor with the Y2K fatalists! You'll hear about the anthill for the next 12 months. I still think Russ is fuming about my post on Debunkers last year. (laughter)

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 14, 2000.

Flint I apologize, I was so busy trying to do other things while reading the posts I skipped over the "HE" and "HIS" that was obvious in Ken's notes...

I wrote: "I follow your posts and read them carefully".... DUH!!! (paw to forehead)

I won't make the same mistake again... (I remember when I found out Will Continue was a woman... OOPS!)

Oh well... C'est la'vie (sp?)

hidin' under the bed...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.

In staid defense of my homie.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 14, 2000.

Dog,

I think it's safer to say Will Continue is female. Beyond gender, I refuse to speculate.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 14, 2000.

Dog:

Gender has been a tough one for me to figure out as well. I once thought BigDog female, OldGit male, Ashton [of Ashton & Leska] female. Others thought chicken little and Y2kpro were female. In fact, one person on this forum still thinks Y2kpro is female. His wife oughta love that one.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 14, 2000.

Chris,

Yourdon made his views known on the Flint issue.

As far as my logic goes, I am simply defending the decision to split the forum. I post on both. I like both. So what's the problem?

What I find enlightening is the continued justification of old TB-sysop bashing (see title post of this thread). It illustrates why why the new forum went private, and why this forum will always have the "LL problem", the "Manny" problem etc etc.

BTW, the LUSENET Catholic Forum is active today. Why don't you drop by there and confront them about their cultlike behaviors also.

-- (@ .), March 14, 2000.

Chris:

I guess "dit" is 'a' from the old days, from general style and approach. The new signature is -- or @ or however you want to view an anonymous signature composed of punctuation marks.

S/he seems a bit bewildered by the difference in this forum. Bully tactics seem to backfire without the gang of "me too" nitwits backed by the moderators. The change toward supporting an opinion with evidence and analysis apparently imposes an insurmountable barrier to those whose purpose (or whose limits, probably) is to bite the ankles of their superiors. Many of the censorites, from my reading, are struggling with their new "freedoms", since no reasonable voices remain to be attacked, and they don't know how to do anything else.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2000.

"a,"

There was no decision to "split" the forum. Ed Yourdon and friends took their little show on the road to EZBoard. A person unhappy with the "private club" philosophy started this forum. Now, there are two separate fora with two different guiding philosophies.

To question the actions of the old sysops is not "bashing." In particular, my contentions have not been gratuitious personal attacks... but a criticism of their actions then and now. I have not accused the old sysops of being gov't agents, sexual deviants or (gasp!) democrats. [I'll leave that sort of nonsense to Andy.] I simply disagree with the philosophy of a closed society.

You will not find me forcing my way onto EZB or the LUSENET Catholic forum. I doubt the Catholics care about my objections to their theology... and I'm quite sure the Yourdonites have the same feelings about their theology.

On an open forum, however, we can discuss Y2K or Catholic theology without limitations. This is a university setting, where the pursuit of knowledge is foremost. EZB is church where a faith is practiced. Personally, I think both universities and churches have a place in the world. I just don't confuse one with the other... and I have little patience for a church pretending to act as an open forum... ergo my criticism of the old forum.

Try to learn something from King of Spain, "a." Have the grace to accept that you were wrong, horribly wrong, about Y2K. As you saw, the Y2K optimists were delighted with a rational, reasonable "Spain." Or simply stay in Church... because you'll just keep getting spanked at the school.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 14, 2000.

@ - WHAT is this furor over "Flint's Take"? What's the deal - it looks like Flint is willing to be put under the same microscope he puts everyone else under. One's mind is always chewing on something and then digesting it - also known as a learning process. (Are you the same as you were at 18?) Public people, do it publicly. Look at Freud, Einstein, heck Yourdon did it with his Programmer writings, from "Decline and Fall of the American Programmer" followed by "Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer." You should be willing to get the link though.

KEN, LL, thank you for saying so. Shall think about re-posting some of these thoughts. A lot of this has been brewing in my mind. Time and circumstances make it so I can't always follow through, so I am a much better listener than a responder.

ANITA, visitors got downed on the old forum - just one of the snipers lying in wait, which happened all too often. What you had to do to get a moderate opinion through was not at all clear although it sometimes happened. (Funny you had not heard of Yourdon yet you are a programmer, maybe you were too busy getting your job done ;-) )

@ -...it made sense to not turn the forum into a separate, private community. Now apparently, it does. There is no law that says Ed Yourdon must host a site for malcontents to bitch about, as Flint and Decker claim, what a scam artist he is.

There is no fur flying now. But time marches on and people change - what do you think Yourdon should do if some of your regulars got a thread going on such a trollish tangent as "Y2k and Internet Hysterias"? Could happen.

FLORA, I had the feeling at times that the old forum was a sum greater than its parts. Call me a cockeyed optimist.

Agree with this sentiment. I screened out a lot of what I didn't want to see (the cult-like part and my attachment to that). I've got this idea that the forum would have gotten through that phase and evolved, if not cut short by censorship, but maybe that is like saying, "if the war hadn't happened, we would have had peace." Seeds of destruction built into the premise.

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 14, 2000.

Ken, you said, and I quote:

"I think it's safer to say Will Continue is female. Beyond gender, I refuse to speculate." - ROTFLMAO!!!

"Or simply stay in Church... because you'll just keep getting spanked at the school." - LOL (I am about to fall out of my chair...)

Rare form... I love it...

I go over to the EZboard once a day... (YAWN!) It FEELS like a church, and anyone who "knows" me, knows how I feel about those...

(I will probably be banned from posting over there for "being" here, but I think I have three or four posts there, so, BFD.)

rollin' on the floor...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), March 14, 2000.

Um, actually I know "a", and "@" is certainly not "a". "a" was one of the first original TB2K regulars to acknowledge that Y2K was seriously overblown, as well as to post a civil goodbye to the forum. I do know who "@" is, but it seems that the TB Uncensored Einsteins don't remember what was clearly posted in the old forum.

Maybe Ken (and Flint? I'm disappointed!) would like to join Laura in her endless obsession with outing posters, printing their IP traceroutes, and making multiple accusations with no apologies when proven wrong.

-- (Not a@a.aaa), March 14, 2000.

Not:

Well, -- is a hard handle to address, and the MO is fairly similar. 'a' made a large number of posts, yet I can recall few if any that didn't include a dig at someone, and most of them did nothing else.

But 'a' was remarkable in one respect -- he realized that the sheer mindless "Hawk" type frontal attacks only made the attacker look like an imbecile. So 'a' was more careful, using misdirection, innuendo, context-switching, belittling and general snideness instead.

So while 'a' did make an apology, confess major error, and disappear, this new '@' or '--' person seems to be using the same general underhanded means of attack (as opposed to thoughtful disagreement or lamebrained profanity). Sorry to mistake them, but anonymous people can call themselves anything they like.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2000.

Flint,

"@" is not a new poster. The individual in question used to post at the original TB2K regularly using a real name and email address. The swith to @ was made, and explained on TB2K, when harassing email was received by the poster. BTW, I am not "@" or "a"...just someone a little disappointed to see you playing this "outing" game a la Laura.

-- (Not a@a.aaa), March 14, 2000.

"Not a", I was a "Yourdonite" Ken is refering to. You might remember me. If not so be it.

"a" changed his name to Hawk, and anounced it very publicly, he did not try to hide it. He would correct us if we had it wrong.

Now too, there were an "@.@.@", an A@A.is.A (or something close to that) and all had very different ciberpersonalities and views and didn't want to be mistaken.

But I still don't remember a "dit" or why he is being taken as "a" on this thread.

People's tendencies to want to guess who a poster is because of a philosophy/view/opinion only confuses issues and discussions. Who cares who's who? Flint and Ken, you often say that you don't formulate your opinions on a post according to the person's character, but the content. Well? Practice what you preach?

I say, let trolls be trolls and ignore the troll posts for one thing. If Hawk, "a", "p" or "z" is the same person, only pay attention to civilized comments, wether it's signed Hawk, a, p or z.

"@", I read Yourdon's views on Flint, and I don't agree with them. That you admit you're defending his views only proves your "allegiance" to him to me. It doesn't make a logical argument for why you defend him. Flint and Ken make a logical argument on why Ed took his forum on Ezboard, but I'm not blindly defending Flint and Ken's views or feel any allegiance to them. I'll question their motives and logics if I feel they're wrong, as I've done on another thread when I took Flint to task to explain why he called the old sysops, especially Diane, "petty". I defended Diane's character on that thread until I couldn't logically argue anymore. IMO, I won.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 14, 2000.

Chris,

'Course I remember you (wavin' to Chris). Your memory serves you well re: Hawk and AisA@A. The morphing of another poster into this "@ dot" handle might have been a bit less sensational. FWIW, the "@ dot" poster was/is civil, never used profanity, and didn't troll...also exhibited an IQ above room temperature while leaning to the doomer side of the scale. That might be bothersome to some.

-- (Not a@a.aaa), March 14, 2000.

It seemed like one of the a's was "Dave," but I don't have the motivation to go back and fish for that post; this is a new forum, and I am learning everyone anew. As for me, I lurked for nearly a year at the old forum before I started posting because I didn't have a computer at home (long story) and didn't want to post from work for a number of reasons.

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

Chris:

Half true, I think. Ken and I were speculating about the author *based* on the content. But in all fairness, what else is left to do when there's no substance to the content? I'll ignore that kind of post most of the time, but if issues are raised I think they should be dealt with. And the issue of whether it was possible to learn, and whether it's proper to select obsolete opinions to create the false impression that no learning took place, or that those whose opinions changed as the data changed are somehow two-faced for doing so, is an issue worth mentioning.

As for Diane, she was a goldmine if you agreed with her. I firmly believe that her usually tacit and sometimes active support for the bullies, combined with her zeal in deleting valid posts from the "enemy" regardless of content, played a key role in poisoning the old forum. And meets my criteria for "petty" to a T. Can you imagine the improvement that old forum would have experienced almost overnight, if Diane had posted warnings to a few (maybe 4 to 6) of the rabid attack-doomers that such would no longer be tolerated?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 14, 2000.

"Not a", wavin' back to you, whoever you are.

"kb8um8" (interesting name, means anything?) I agree completely with "getting to know everyone anew", I've stated that from the beginning I started posting here. I feel I was mistaken about Y2K and fell for FUD, and if I'm going to learn from my mistakes, I shouldn't repeat them.

Flint, I believe our disagreement is on semantics, or more presisely, psycological semantics. You say that Diane is petty, I will agree that some, not all, of her behavior as a sysop was petty. But more importantly that she wasn't censoring in favor of the doomers because she is inherantly a petty person, but because she was misguided. You're judging the whole person's character, I'm judging the behavior itself and attempting to express from my vantage point of what would/could have caused it. I myself have been taken in by the doomer's views, and I also acted in some ways "petty". I've attacked your character along with the "Yourdonite" gang, etc. Those were mistakes in hindsight. But like I said, I'm trying to learn from past mistakes (and hopefully not fall for anything like this whole Y2K doomer-rama ever again.) I've attempted to explain to you that Diane (without speaking too much for her, but what I know of her) could easily have been just as misguided as I was, but her position on that forum was a lot more complicated socially and probably affected her academic thinking much more. She has moved on to her own forum and new vistas. It's speaks a lot for her character, and opinions, IMO.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 14, 2000.

Regarding this "a" vs. "A" vs. "@" vs. Hawk issue, I was there when Hawk changed his name.

"a" changed his name to Hawk, and anounced it very publicly, he did not try to hide it. He would correct us if we had it wrong.

Actually he did correct "Sifting" just recently in this post< /a> regarding the name issue in his usual diplomatic way:

Hey sifting you worthless piece of horseshit, it seems you are the lamest of lame brians around here, you can't even see the difference between an "@" and an "A" you dumbshit! "A" is a completely different person, but I do agree with most of his posts.

I remember when he used to use a name that consisted only of the "@" symbol. I don't remember if it was simply ".@." or "@.@.@". All I remember is that he used one of them, and then someone else started using the other. He kept yelling at them (in his usual diplomatic way) to cut it out as he felt that people would be confused between the two names. Finally, he decided to cut out the "@" symbol altogether and simply go with "Hawk". I haven't a clue where the post is where he changed his name, but I know that he was never "A" or "a".

Regarding "a," I'm not so sure that he is this "dit" person or anyone else here. You may want to re-read his final post to TB2000 which you can find here. I definitely got the impression that not only had he "repented" for his behavior, but that he was truly getting on with his life. You'll have to evaluate it yourself and see if you agree.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 14, 2000.

Yuck. Let me try again....

Regarding this "a" vs. "A" vs. "@" vs. Hawk issue, I was there when Hawk changed his name.

"a" changed his name to Hawk, and anounced it very publicly, he did not try to hide it. He would correct us if we had it wrong.

Actually he did correct "Sifting" just recently in this very post regarding the name issue in his usual diplomatic way:

Hey sifting you worthless piece of horseshit, it seems you are the lamest of lame brians around here, you can't even see the difference between an "@" and an "A" you dumbshit! "A" is a completely different person, but I do agree with most of his posts.

I remember when he used to use a name that consisted only of the "@" symbol. I don't remember if it was simply ".@." or "@.@.@". All I remember is that he used one of them, and then someone else started using the other. He kept yelling at them (in his usual diplomatic way) to cut it out as he felt that people would be confused between the two names. Finally, he decided to cut out the "@" symbol altogether and simply go with "Hawk". I haven't a clue where the post is where he changed his name, but I know that he was never "A" or "a".

Regarding "a," I'm not so sure that he is this "dit" person or anyone else here. You may want to re-read his final post to TB2000 which you can find here. I definitely got the impression that not only had he "repented" for his behavior, but that he was truly getting on with his life. You'll have to evaluate it yourself and see if you agree.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 14, 2000.

"kb8um8" (interesting name, means anything?)

KB8 is the 8th call district in ham radio. I didn't want to post my real call sign because my home street address is in the FCC data base, so um for University of Michigan and 8 because I needed a number, rather than a letter, on the end so that I wasn't "borrowing" anyone's sign, which I originally did (and subsequently apologized).

More that you wanted to know, I'm sure. (-8

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

"That" is "Than" ... time for tea and/or bed ...

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

hmmm,

Ding ding ding! You are correct. It was "this dit person" who caused Hawk to change his name. The dit person also explained why (receiving harassing emails from using real name and email address on the old forum) the switch to @. that had upset Hawk so much.

-- (You win@prize.now), March 14, 2000.

I refuse to believe that Hawk is "a". I cannot recall "a" using they type of foul language that is Hawk's trademark, and "a" and I got along very well in chat, while hawk and I butt heads at every turn.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 14, 2000.

(I feel like a real nerd for arguing over this. Go take the test when you need a break over this ;-) )

Kb8um8, on the contrary, I'm always interested to know why people choose certain handle (the non obvious ones. Handles can say a lot about a person ;-)

Hmmm and Unc, I think you're right and I'm just very confused with the a's, A's, and @'s handles. Now that you mentioned it Unc, I remember chatting with "a" in Bok's room, and although we butted heads on specific issues, he seemed a lot more civil. And thinking over that time when this @ switched to Hawk, I remember he made a big deal over it with nasty remarks. But in any case, I don't care that much who they are on this forum anymore, it's a new place. Just trying to make a point about flames, trolls and legitimate posters.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 14, 2000.

Jesus. Can't a guy get a little anonymity around here?

For those symbolically challenged:

Yes I am 'a'.

I am not @@@.@ (Hawk), AisA (I wanna see a 11+++...NOW), Dave (aaa), or any of the other 'a' variants.

Now that I've been busted (thanks a lot Ken), I guess I'll start posting as (a@a.a) again...uh, unless there are any objections from the peanut gallery.

-- a (a@a.a), March 15, 2000.

Better be symbolically impaired and really impaired, don't you think? ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 15, 2000.

Take 2 *snap*

Better be symbolically impaired than really impaired, don't you think? ;-)

Because I was bored just now, I went back and re-read some of the posts. My confusion started when Ken called @ (whois "a" now we know) "dit" Nowhere on this thread did I see someone signing "dit".

So, anyway, hi 'a'.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 15, 2000.