I think everyone who was critical of the job the old forum sysops were faced with owes them a big APOLOGY.

-- I told ya so (@ .), March 17, 2000

Answers

I told ya

When this board was started Old Regular said that basic netiquette was to be observed. If you want to call remaining faithful to the observance "censorship," so be it. Some here appear to want to test the limits of netiquette, for who knows what purpose, but that doesn't mean most of us don't have an understanding of human courtesy. If you don't, that's your problem, not ours.

-- viewer (justp@ssing.by), March 17, 2000.

So...........it's OK to censor what the censor deems to be unfair or of no value, is that it?

Hmmm. Seems like that's just what Diane Squire was doing when she was called a Nazi by Flint.

How does it go? "One man's troll is another man's prophet?"

-- I told ya so (@ .), March 17, 2000.

The distinction isn't quite that subtle. We're seeing efforts at pure disruption, devoid of other content. The goal of OTFR is to *facilitate* discussion, whereas the goal of the old sysops was to *steer* discussion, and to delete authors rather than content. One only needs to consider how eagerly the old sysops took advantage of the ability to silence the "wrong" people easily. Do you really think it's a coincidence that *every one* of these voices turned out to be correct?

Those who act like spoiled children deserved to be spanked, but NOT killed. They remain free to express any opinion they want. Correcting wrong behavior is perfectly acceptable. Correcting wrong *opinions* is what the old sysops tried to do, and are doing on the censored forum.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2000.

To Flint:

Hogwash! If you would read some of the discussions on that forum now you would realize how ridiculous your post is. I have an idea that some of you were censored because of your constant harangueing and your personal insults to Mr. Yourdon and the Sysops. If you came to my home and were constantly rude and insulting to me, I would kick you out.

-- (tiredofstupidity@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

Anonymous Troll,

Please explain what you believed was "censored." You are still here posting are you not? Have you been "banned?" Have you been placed on the special "red list?" Have you received the "global snips?"

I await your answers.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), March 17, 2000.

stupidity:

Partially correct. Your "home" reminds me of an interest group, white men allowed only, sitting around discussing the best solution to the "nigger problem". Naturally, anyone who would openly call you a bigot would not be tolerated. The penalty you pay for this privilege is that your universe of discourse is impoverished.

And as experience has shown us with y2k, defending a narrow conviction by means of disallowing disagreement is an excellent guarantee of completely missing the boat and looking stupid. Defending this stupidity by *strengthening* the barriers against "wrong" opinions is howlingly stupid. But comfortable, to be sure. So hey, enjoy your comfort.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2000.

The answer to this one is pretty simple. Those who where defenders of the old nazi moderators of stinkbomb2000 are now trolling this forum, being as disruptive as they can. They want to frustrate OFR into "doing" what JackbootSquire and the rest of the thought police did, only for different reasons. Then they can point there boney childish fingers and say "look look more censorship!".

It's as plain as a Bulgarian pin-up.

I wouldn't be suprized if "i told ya so" was Old Git or DJS herself, looking for validation.

-- Super Polly (FU_Q_Y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), March 17, 2000.

Why rise to their bait ?

The chances of changing these particular opinions is zero. (Bear in mind, these arent really opinions, they are the barking of programmed dogs, sent from behind the high walls of the cult to spread their masters anguish that people exist who are unwilling to be assimilated. Let them howl themselves hoarse).

Anyone with a fully functioning brain can perceive the difference in context here, as well as in operational effect.

In the old TB2000, people were deleted (censored) on the simple grounds that they were not prepared to blindly "toe the cult line" which was dictated by a few militant extremists. The moderate doomers had a problem with it, but they knew the end result if they stood up and complained too loudly. I posted many times in the old forum, and for ages they couldnt deal with it, because I refused to break their published rules. The best the sysops could do was evade and belittle my argument. Of course, on every occasion the "usual suspects" (doomer attack-dogs) were permitted to harrass, insult, threaten and generally flame to their hearts content. If a non-doomer used similar tactics, they were banned. That inequality was, and remains, the foundation stone of censorship.

In this room, moderate doomers and old-time polly's alike seem to be able to discuss issues without recourse to anger and vitriol. No bias is shown (in terms of behaviour or imposition of rule and punishment) to either "camp" in any debate. Thats freedom of speech right there. I left the old forum in disgust. I have returned to this one willingly.

While the policy remains to allow ANY opinion, so long as it contributes to the discussion, and not to delete based on identity, past record or the "side" you're on, I will continue to post and lurk here without complaint.

Yourdons other board has begun as a logical extension of what it had become here. A censored chatroom for cult members. So long as that is what they advertise, and the participants are happy there, good luck to them. Their attempt to equate this place with the asylum they inhabit is as facile as it is inappropriate. The comparison is made to antagonise, not to promote reflection. By responding to them, you simply encourage them. Like the noisy and badly-educated children they are, they are best ignored.

Sysop, I was always vociforous concerning censorship. So long as you continue to demonstrate the even handed and fair minded use of your powers, you have my support.

Regards

W

-- w0lv3r1n3 (w0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

Do you really think it's a coincidence that *every one* of these voices turned out to be correct?

Correct about what, I wonder? Y2K? Censorship?

Perhaps they were correct that if they acted up on the forum they would be banished? They were certainly warned of this often enough!

Not everyone has your aptitude, Flint. Some just revert to the 'terrible-twos' mentality, as evidenced here on occasion.

Of course the petty bickering here, and the 'dogging' of certain posters, is not quite the same as before, yet... [or maybe it is!]

I can see how it could become so. Very soon. I myself have monitored the old board for some considerable time. I have also monitored Y2K Debunked and Biffy but declined to go to Gary North.

At Debunky, and Biffy, the majority of posts were about TB2000 and the folks who posted there. At least, in the last few months. It seemed apparent to me that those boards always lumped all the TB2000 posters into the same catagory. Because of the fact that TB2000 was an open forum requiring no application for membership [registration or whatever] anyone could post there. No, there was no requirement of meme acceptance as some on the other boards I mentioned have spewed. No one had to use their own name, and no one had to use the same name all the time. I believe the same goes for those other boards, but I do not know for sure.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I like this saying. Pretty much sums up everything, and puts people in their place. If people don't like the place it puts them in, it is up too them to change it! [I have seen this posted at the old forum and I think it was a Biffy, too. Maybe it was Debunky...]

Me thinks that OTFR is getting a pretty good idea of what the sysops on 'classic TB2000' had to put up with now that he/she is in the sysop seat.

I feel that the 'classic TB2000 sysops,' ezboard sysops and OTFR here do not have to explain anything. Never had to, and never will have to. That's it. Don't like it, go somewhere else. Like a certain someone keeps saying she will do but never does.

[And yes, of late I have been playing around here.]

~*~

-- An observer (outside@chuckling.usually), March 17, 2000.

you wrote . .

Of course the petty bickering here, and the 'dogging' of certain posters, is not quite the same as before, yet... [or maybe it is!]

You're right, on the old TB2000, the "dogging" came about because it was a forum pretending to be open and democratic, where in reality it was always a "members only club" as regards the treatment of contributants. The rules never did apply to everyone, but the sysops never ever would admit it. The difference here, is that the deletion of posts is ONLY being done based on the merits (or otherwise) of that post, and not by the point of view of the poster.

I can see how it could become so. Very soon. I myself have monitored the old board for some considerable time. I have also monitored Y2K Debunked and Biffy but declined to go to Gary North.

Monitored ? You mean you lurked ? Monitored seems an unnecessarily scary term.

At Debunky, and Biffy, the majority of posts were about TB2000 and the folks who posted there. At least, in the last few months.

I'd argue with the term "majority". Many were, but those that weren't dealt with specific issues around Y2K FUD. Because the old TB2000 was one of the major hotbeds of FUD, and its contributors were some of the prime movers in the Y2K FUD-for-profit industry, they got coverage. So what ?

It seemed apparent to me that those boards always lumped all the TB2000 posters into the same catagory.

Not true, there were at least 2 categories. (FUD leaders - or meme propogators, and FUD believers - or meme victims). There were probably a host of sub categories too.

Because of the fact that TB2000 was an open forum requiring no application for membership [registration or whatever] anyone could post there.

Until they were banned

No, there was no requirement of meme acceptance as some on the other boards I mentioned have spewed.

Nonsense. Name a "member of the fold" who considered that Y2K's impact would be negligible, or minimal.

No one had to use their own name, and no one had to use the same name all the time. I believe the same goes for those other boards, but I do not know for sure.

Hence the ability of a small number of militant extremists to appear to all the world like a whole club full of like-minders.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I like this saying. Pretty much sums up everything, and puts people in their place.

I prefer the saying "I have done literally thousands of hours of research, on the net" - it's way funnier.

If people don't like the place it puts them in, it is up too (sic) them to change it! [I have seen this posted at the old forum and I think it was a Biffy, too. Maybe it was Debunky...]

Me thinks that OTFR is getting a pretty good idea of what the sysops on 'classic TB2000' had to put up with now that he/she is in the sysop seat.

Maybe, but then OTFR doesnt have to worry about applying the rules unevenly depending on sides, and maintain a content-monitoring system to make sure that "unclean" ideas do not survive. So its not THAT great a comparison

I feel that the 'classic TB2000 sysops,' ezboard sysops and OTFR here do not have to explain anything. Never had to, and never will have to.

Maybe they dont HAVE to explain anything, but it sure helps to be able to hold your head up and be proud of the decisions you make IF someone asks, right ? So far OTFR can do that. Probably the old TB2000 sysops wouldnt know that feeling.

That's it. Don't like it, go somewhere else. Like a certain someone keeps saying she will do but never does.

You could apply this argument to just about anything. But it doesnt ever lead to any bad things being changed for the better. Sometimes it's better to stand up and argue for what you believe.

[And yes, of late I have been playing around here.]

Good for you

~*~

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), March 17, 2000.

I don't imagine the old sysops are holding their collective breath waiting for an apology from me. (laughter)

The excellent responses thus far show the difference between this forum and the old TB 2000. On this forum, censorship can be discussed with the forum jackboots tromping on the conversation... as evidenced by this very thread.

I agree with Flint. Some posts (particularly those that are exact copies posted multiple times) are nothing more than DOS attacks. In the principle of open discourse, I suggested leaving one copy of each DOS attack post for general consumption. Why bother to keep the rest?

I am not a regular reader here, but perhaps someone can explain what posts have been allegedly deleted? On what basis were they deleted? And is there any truth to the allegation the "sour grapes" kids from the EZB are behind the DOS attacks? A bit more information would be helpful.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 17, 2000.

The difference here, is that the deletion of posts is ONLY being done based on the merits (or otherwise) of that post, and not by the point of view of the poster.

Sounds good. That (or otherwise) sorta leaves an out though. I agree with the gist of what you say here.

Monitored ? You mean you lurked ? Monitored seems an unnecessarily scary term

Okay, use that term. Same thing.

I'd argue with the term "majority". Many were, but those that weren't dealt with specific issues around Y2K FUD. Because the old TB2000 was one of the major hotbeds of FUD, and its contributors were some of the prime movers in the Y2K FUD-for-profit industry, they got coverage.

So we agree that many posts were about TB2000 and the posters there. And yet you then say that those posts that weren't about TB2000 and its posters were about FUD and then go and say that TB2000 was covered in those as well because of the topic. So it seems that you are trying to separate some posts from others when in fact TB2000 and its posters were somehow part of them as well.

So let's just say that those are included in the many we agree on, and forget the majority/minority issue. It isn't really important, anyway.

I agree that there was a lot of information at Debunked and Biffy that had nothing to do with TB2000 specifically. It's just that all three forums basically discussed the same subjects. My point is that Debunked and Biffy seemed to discuss TB2000 more than TB2000 discussed them. That's all.

there were at least 2 categories...et al.

And yet, that was not at all apparent except when the FUD leaders - or meme propogators were mentioned. But even then it wasn't all the time. Perhaps it was an assumption on the part of the individual poster at the time.

Until they were banned

Name a "member of the fold"

If banned,there was a reason. Right or wrong, there was a reason. It wasn't my decision. If it happened to me, I would probably be hurt and angry. But then, I mostly monitored/lurked anyway so the difference to me would have been minor.

Member of the fold? This is putting the posters into one group, which is what I said I saw on Debunky and Biffy. You said they didn't do that there, and now you do it here? I am going to go out on a limb here and make the assumption [as dangerous as that is, ;-)] that you are referring to a 'subset' at TB2000 and not all of the posters in general.

Hence the ability of a small number of militant extremists to appear to all the world like a whole club full of like-minders.

This one starts out as sounding like you are referring to a 'subset' of the posters at TB2000 and yet I cannot quite shake the feeling that you are referring to them all. [I guess another assumption is called for? ;-)]

OTFR doesn't have to worry about applying the rules unevenly depending on sides, and maintain a content-monitoring system to make sure that "unclean" ideas do not survive.

You were allowed to post your opinion on TB2000. As I recall, you disagreed with the sysops, and made your point known. That, to me, would be evidence to the contrary of what the banned posters are claiming. Or were your posts deleted? I do remember reading them, though maybe not all of them. I did get your message.

Since the intent of the two boards you refer to are different, the same rules wouldn't necessarily be applicable. OTFR is running this board his/her way, and the sysops of TB2000 classic ran it their way. Basic netiquette, apply to both. But on each board, the ruling of the sysops is final. Whoever owns the board makes the rules.

Sometimes it's better to stand up and argue for what you believe.

Only when you have the chance to make a change for the better. When folks were expressing dissatisfaction with TB2000 and the sysops, they forgot that. If you cannot affect change, you're basically just spinning your wheels. Wasn't this posted at TB2000, "The decision of the sysop is final."?

At any rate, it's good to talk to you. It's been a while....

-- An observer (outside@chuckling.usually), March 17, 2000.

{yaaawwwnnnnn}

Are we there yet?

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

REFUSING TO APOLGIZE.....Standing Tall.....

VERY PROUD OF NEW FORUM AND ALL HERE>>>>>>

====consumer

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

{yaaawwwnnnnn} Are we there yet? -- cin

don't worry dear. youll know when we get there when you get flung out the window. shant be too long. i see a cliff up ahead...

LOL

-- speeding up (pacificco@st.highway), March 17, 2000.

As for "Stupid," Flint makes his points, but I'm tempted to chime in. There is a difference between a private club and an open forum. The old TB 2000 pretended to be an open forum... at least for a bit. EZB is simply the final evolutionary step of the old forum... total control by the sysops.

I would no more participate in EZB than attend a Klan Rally. And I suggest, you are better served staying in your home (or on EZB) than wandering into a public forum. Go back to EZB... and complain if you see any of Y2K optimists barging into your "living room."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 17, 2000.

Don't you think that was just a tad bit disturbed?

You need to SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP, before you REALLY hurt someone.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

Consumer,

I wasn't aware you had ANYTHING to apologize for.

Heres the deal as moi sees it.If the people from the SLEZ board can't stand the thought that LL,Flint,Decker and other of the so called undesireables moving into their old house why don't they stay at the new condo and forget the old neighborhood.

I don't think they are capable of moving on and staying with those of like mind,like they continually stress when defending their censorship.Petty BS and payback mentality is all they have to offer.

Maybe they are needing more posters over there and one source for new blood is here,if they cause enough havoc here maybe we will seek the safe confines of the NOTZ board.

My reply; Go the hell home!!!

Or do you want to start a cross board flame war?

I for one will not stoop to your level and will stay here,wading through your multiple posts of drivel and personal attacks just to find one single post of merit.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 17, 2000.

Don't you think that was just a tad bit disturbed? -- cin

Actually Cin, it would have been a tad bit disturbed without the LOL qualifier indicating a joke was being made.

Whether you consider it a good joke or not is totally up to you. No one really cares whether you liked it or not.

I think it falls into the same category as {yaaawwwnnnnn} does.

If the threads are boring you to sleep, go take a nap. Perhaps after some rest humor of this type wouldn't go over your head. Or thru it.

lol

-- Speeding up (pacificco@st.highway), March 17, 2000.

The old SYSOPS at the old Forum can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 17, 2000.

I would like to address this to Flint and Decker, in particular, as they are both intelligent and both were objects of heated derision in the old TB2000.

My memory of the quality of the sysoping on TB2000 was that it was partisan, but in such a porous way as to indicate that it was driven by emotion rather than by design. As such, it was not nearly so conscious an action as the "steering" suggested by Flint.

My best evidence for this is that Hoffmeister, Flint and Decker were never, to my knowledge, subjected to the "delete on sight" policy that was applied to Y2KPro, LL, and Andy Ray (among others). Their voices were always heard, and they were allowed to have their say.

From time to time I also sailed into the prevailing winds or chided an overly-aggressive or cocksure pronouncement by some of the more rabid participants. There was never any hint of my being deleted. Probably because my overall position was within the TB2000 weltanschaung, but also because I did not spit on the floor or beat on my chest into the bargain.

It was VERY plain to anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear that chest-beating and spitting on the floor were not universally punished. They could be practised with impunity by those whose notions fit the prevailing beliefs, and only by them. There was an active hypocrisy in this regard. But hypocrisy is a pretty common human failing.

My impression is that the sysops banished those who coupled an irritating and rude conduct with ideas that were commonly derided by the group. Disapproved ideas alone were never enough to cause banishment.

This situation could be likened to what arises when dozens of children are playing on a playground under adult supervision. The adult has enunciated certain rules to be followed, yet the play is rough and the rules are broken pretty constantly. Unless the adult proves to be scrupulously, even superhumanly fair, there will be children with grievances.

If there had been no adult supervision, the aggrieved would direct their grievance toward the kid who kicked them, bit them or called them names. Then they would figure out some way to *deal* with it. But the presence of the adult just makes things worse, if the adult isn't up to the demands of the job. It accumulates grievances against the adult as well as the offender.

The sysops were in the position of the adults on the schoolyard who weren't up to the demands of the job. They played favorites. They made snap judgmentes. They applied arbitrary and poorly articulated standards and applied them unevenly. They didn't get to the bottom of the problem.

But equally, I see those who were subjected to the raw side of this deal nursing their grievances still. It is said (I think it was GW Chesterton) that children love justice, while adults cherish forgiveness. Rather than continue to accuse the sysops of TB2000 of unfairness and injustice, I suggest that it is far better to forgive them their weakness and acknowledge their effort. Their actions were generally well-meant, if you could only see past your own hurt over what they did.

An apology would be nice. I doubt you'll ever see one. But remember, the children on the playground have NO IDEA how hard it is to be the adult. As adults, we should know better by now.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 17, 2000.

This was copied from the top of the first page of the TB2000 Classic Forum on ezboard: 554 registered members. Registered members are increasing daily so it obviously has something to offer other than a "doomer" view of y2k which is rarely mentioned.

-- (tiredofstupidity@aol.com), March 17, 2000.

stupidity:

It should be a matter of some reflection to you, that y2k is rarely mentioned by the censorites (except for the occasional allegation that "hidden" y2k problems, visible to nobody else, are responsible for this or that of the world's ills).

Quite a bit of effort has been made on this forum to try to figure out HOW people got y2k so very wrong. Some of this effort is from those facing up to their mistakes and trying to learn from them, some of it is semi-rehash of what was written last year, now viewed in a new light. This effort is potentially valuable, especially for those who choose to make it.

So it's informative that those most resistent to listening beforehand, are now those most eager to pretend lack of further interest. There's a certain irony to a board called TimeBomb 2000 whose members are very carefully and quietly ignoring the topic and the reality.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2000.

"Stupid," Because people have registered for EZB, the site must offer something of value. I can see a future for you representing sexually- oriented web sites. After all, if people keep registering.... (laughter)

Brian,

I disagree. You attribute the foibles of the old forum sysops to simple incompetence and a tendency towards knee-jerk reactions. I do not. Diane Squire claims an MBA; Russ Lipton, a degree from St. John's College in Annapolis. Lipton, Squire, Git, Rienzo and the rest were not chosen at random. Ed Yourdon selected them... presumably because of their long affiliation with the TB 2000 forum. I suggest their general agreement with his position was also a factor.

I may have a quarrel with the old sysops, but I do not consider them unintelligent. A brazen deletion of Flint, Hoffman or me would have precipited exactly what happened with EZB. During the Y2K debate, it was important for the old sysops to maintain at least the appearance of credibility and an open debate. Of course, while they tolerated the thoughtful optimists, they also encouraged a "scorched earth" policy. In short, "you can't believe Flint because he's Flint... a paid gov't shill, closet doomer and anti-Christ." If our voices were heard, it was not for a lack of shouting by the pessimists.

Oh, and remember, the old sysops thought they were actually winning the Y2K debate. (chuckle)

Your posts, Brian, never really challenged any of the pessmist totems. You had a Dave Walden quality... calm and tactful. Had you taken one swipe at Ed Yourdon... you might have found your sailing quite different.

As for the hypocrisy, you offer the most benign explanation. A more sinister interpretation is that the old sysops say some utility in letting slip the dogs of war... a systematic attempt to destroy the credibility of those who held an opposing view.

And Brian, before you ascend the Mount for the rest of your sermon, let me save us both time. You may have achieved some higher level of moral reason... enjoy the view. I am quite content to remain unreconstructed. I am not willing to dismiss the behavior of many of my old foes as simply misguided. For the most part, the old sysops (and compatriots) are phantoms... anonymous ghosts with no real connection to my world. In truth, I've never lost a moment's sleep about them.

On the other hand, while noncorporeal, they were smallminded and meanspirited. They earned my enmity and so they shall have it.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 17, 2000.

Yourdon & Censors say no because they don't want to know.

"The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of an eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract."

"My mind is made up, so don't try to confuse me with the facts."

"A paranoid is a man who knows a little of what's going on."

-- The Chaplain (clean@handkerchief.com), March 17, 2000.

Ken:

>> I may have a quarrel with the old sysops, but I do not consider them unintelligent. <<

Intelligence is not often a decisive factor when emotions run high.

>> Had you taken one swipe at Ed Yourdon... you might have found your sailing quite different. <<

I have no doubt that a chorus of the more rowdy and sycophantic would have done their best to brand me a polly and a fool and to run me out of town on a rail. Had I persisted, I would have become a target in precisely the way you and Flint were. But I don't think I would have been banned outright or censored. I think you'd agree with that.

>> And Brian, before you ascend the Mount for the rest of your sermon [...] <<

As for my sermonizing, all I can say is, forgive me. I am weak in that way.

>> They earned my enmity and so they shall have it. <<

Long may you and it prosper. I always say if you must have enemies, make sure they are worthy of you.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), March 17, 2000.

"I always say if you must have enemies, make sure they are worthy of you."

Brian, I disagree with some of the things I've been hearing you say, but I've never heard that quote before, and it sure is making my night easier.

Thanks. Your timing was perfect.

~*~

-- Laura (Ladylogic@...), March 18, 2000.

Speaking of perfect timing, weren't you leaving?

~*~

-- here is your hat (goodbye@be.gone), March 18, 2000.

Brian,

We are both guessing at the motives of the old sysops. Perhaps we simply have different views because I was a constant target, and you were not.

As for censorship, I'm not sure any of the "content rich" optimists would have made the delete-on-sight list... for the same reasons I stated above. I also find your argument less than compelling. Just because a handful of Y2K optimists were spared deletion does not make the censorship less egregious. Do you really expect me to take a conciliatory position because I, personally, avoided the jackboots?

"Really, darling, the Nazis are not too terrible. They missed our house altogether."

(sardonic chuckle)

Just so you know, I do not consider the old sysops (or the other ankle biters) enemies. They do not constitute any real threat. The exclusionary behavior is ultimately self defeating. It is just another small cult of individuals who have no influence on the course of human events. So it goes.

Even so, I will give no free passes on this forum. If any of the old pessimists show and try their bully boy (or girl) tactics... it's a sound spanking and back to the sandbox.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 18, 2000.

On various occasions on the old forum since the rollover, I had made posts that were in reference to the notorious TB2000 forumites, Ashton & Leska. Each of these posts was summarily deleted ASAP. I assumed that A&L were sysops or one of the protected few. These loonies were two of the worst when it came to declaring the terrible Armageddon in store for humanity on 1/1/2000. Of course they went into hiding after rollover and did not surface for weeks. I felt that the censoring of comments directed at the Cascadian Crazies was selective omission at its worst.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 18, 2000.

Ashton and Leska...

Another name for "Where are they now" segment of TB 2000.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), March 18, 2000.

Another problem with the selective deletion policy was the "destruction of the evidence"

The Deleted Threads forum was telling (although I'm guessing it was a small fragment of what was actually deleted). Where is it?

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), March 18, 2000.

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q- and-a.tcl?topic=TimeBomb%202000%20%28Y2000%29%20Deleted%20Thread

yeah, this is only a small portion of what was being deleted, but it tells a LARGE story...

-- helpful (helping@out.now), March 18, 2000.

Debbie and everyone who wonder what kinds of threads/posts I delete, I'll be posting them to Deleted posts/threads from TB2K Spinoff Uncensored thread on the TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) Deleted Thread forum, from now on.

No need to start another forum for the posts I delete IMO, unless the sysop on that forum has an objection to it.

OTFR

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), March 18, 2000.

Maybe you could post the IP numbers where the poster came from, so others could complain to the ISP? It would also be very telling on WHO was posting this garbage. If it is anonymouse, then that at least tells us that the "attackers" are gutless wimps.

-- "I told ya so" is a spineless, gutless, terd (you@smell.bad, "@ ."), March 20, 2000.

"Stupidity" you can subtract one from that members list at EY's EZ-board. I registered just to see if I was banned. I posted one test message and will never post there again. I suspect there are quite a few others registered there who cannot be counted in the "memebership."

As for the old TB2000, there was deleting going on long before any poster was singled out. I personally witnessed many anonymous posts vanish upon reloading a thread, and that was long before any spam attacks.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 20, 2000.

I too am registered over at EZ board. I have posted one question, and do not lurk there because I find the format to be cluncky and slow, not at all what my instant gratification psyche requires.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

Buddy,

I too signed on just to 'see' if I was banned after getting into a 'tiff' with a regular before the new forum started....Bardou, where are you? Uncle Dee, you do remember Bardou? At any rate, I stuck up for Bardou and hence the big tiff erupted.

I did get 'hot' cuz Bardou was around along time. Sides were taken and the other party got it hands down. sigh

Count me as a 'registered' believe it or not I even got the password, have not ONCE posted there, and DO NOT intend to. Like the unc., I am always looking for 'instant gratification' {snicker}

Couldnt get my 'fix'.

LOVE IT HERE. Feel at home.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), March 20, 2000.

Uncle Deedah, I surmise that you believe computing should be used to increase the efficiency of humans, rather than to feed the engine of capitalism. Heresy! Consider me a fellow heretic. 8^)

Brian, I like your playground example, even though I don't see a strong analogy between its adults and the old sysops. I don't recall any posters of the doomer variety being banned from the old TB2000 forum, despite many posts of doomers being at least as strident and vulgar as anything ever produced by a polly. I found this double standard appalling, despite my doomer outlook.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 20, 2000.

And another poster joins the growing crowed of ex-doomers "appalled" at the behavior of some particularly vicious pre-rollover doomers, but who *never said a word about it* at the time.

As someone who was spattered with doomer-spittle on a regular basis, I was always curious at the utter lack of complaint. By everyone, NOT just the sysops. I'm not saying these people weren't appalled, but the chilling effect of the "moderation" bears some reflection. As Walter Lippmann wrote, all that's necessary for evil to win in this world is for good men to do nothing.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 20, 2000.

Consumer,

Yes, Bar was there before I showed up in early 98. I enjoyed chatting with her in Bok's too. I'm surprised that a regular would have had a problem with Bardou. But that place changed from what it was when it was open (more or less) debate, and I found myself posting less and less as Y2K drew nigh. Life she keeps on changin.

As to this place, yes I like it too. I had almost resumed a normal life til I found it. Freewheeling debate and flamefesting, what more could one want?

David L,

Actually I believe both, heresy indeed. The bidness of America is bidness afterall.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

Jeepers Flint, I hope that I am not included in your blanket statement.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

Unc:

Look back through the archives. Find all the cases where the bullyboys started ganging up on the usual "idiot pollies". Hell, find almost any thread, since the pattern was fairly regular, that a new subject would be started, and the thread would degenerate into name calling. Then find a post, ANY post, where someone NOT a usual target chided anyone for such treatment. Betcha can't do it.

Alternatively, find nearly any post by KOS, or 'a', or Andy, or Ray, or Crono, or INVAR, or Milne. See if you can find any "doomer" taking offense at what they were saying to or about the "idiot pollies". You have maybe 30,000 threads to choose from.

Think you can find a "doomer" who was appalled, and SAID so?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 20, 2000.

Ummm, yeah, me.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), March 20, 2000.

I was a doomer who couldn't stand Milne and his spewing mouth. I also protested to the sysops about INVAR's sick "JBD Saga", and his foul mouth, many times.

Here's a post of mine on this thread where I let Milne know what I thought of him (. Although I must admit I was timid there, not wanting to get him going with a spewing ranting reply back at me. (I know better than to argue with zealots.)

***********

Your post borders on psychopath, Mr. Milne. At least chest-pounding testosterone bags do so to protect their clan.

To understand the meaning of "coming to emotional terms" one must first feel emotions, outside of the narcissistic kind.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), December 17, 1998.

****************

After his reply to someone else, I went back and posted this:

Sick. Now I'm sure he is a psychopath.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), December 17, 1998.

***************

That thread BTW, shows Milne's sick mind best, IMO.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 20, 2000.

Flint,
It's true that I wasn't vocal about the strident doomers, but neither was I vocal about the strident pollies. Some people enjoy getting involved in out-of-control threads. I don't. But I was reluctant to come to your aid primarily because doing so would have provoked your detractors into mocking you for needing a rescuer, and I judged that you were more than holding your own. Apparently you would have appreciated the support, but not knowing that at the time, I tried to project how I'd feel in your situation and act accordingly.

Nonetheless, I did defend you on several threads that hadn't gone ballistic, but as I recall, you were not referenced near the top, so it's understandable if these threads escaped your attention.

The main way I attempted to improve the climate of the forum was simply to post in my usual restrained and supportive style. Sometimes I tried to explain where two viewpoints were closer than appeared, and this seemed to have eased some tensions. Other times I'd inject some humor to defuse a budding confrontation.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 20, 2000.

Your a dollar short and three months late, David, You have no F^$%^^&$% excuse for not speaking out against the tyranny.

You owe Mr. Flint and all the non doomers an apology.

Or else you truly are a bumpkin? (Forgive me, but you have been irritating me for a very long time now, you spineless wimp.)

-- (I was @ here.com), March 20, 2000.

It's more complex than that. I know I frequently got private email from people who agreed with what I was saying but didn't care to subject themselves to the inevitable abuse from saying so publicly. But I'm not saying you should have pretended to agree with individuals with whom you disagreed.

There was a double standard. Occasionally somone would take a particularly virulent doomer attack and change ONLY the name of the person being attacked (from a polly name to a doomer name), and insert it into another thread. This was always funny, because few people recognized the post itself (attacks are pretty generic). Instead, a dozen posters would rise in righteous anger at how *nasty* those pollies were! The original post, of course, was surrounded by "me too" attacks against the evil pollies, and blended right in. Nobody but y2k Pro ever seemed to notice, and of course HE was "disappeared" though he never broke any forum rules.

Chris, yes as I recall you were an exception. You *did* express disgust at some of those attacks, never joined them, and were (still are) often a pleasure to talk to. Mazel.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 20, 2000.

Flint - it's OK...calm down...it's over.

Are you having nightmares or something?

-- Chill Pill for Flint (R@x.com), March 20, 2000.

Flint,

I seem to recall a mild skirmish with Will C. last summer regarding your topic {and toilet paper}. That was more than enough for me. As for Pro - I'm still waiting for the genetic testing between it & 'it's coming soon'. I would lay good money that they were separated at birth.

x.com,

You might want to look twice at those chill pills.

-- flora (***@__._), March 20, 2000.

I was here, you refer to me as spineless? As a wimp?

I can't recall the last time anyone called me those things.

Unlike some of my peers, I do not seek to use my intellect or my facility with the written word as weapons with which to bully, embarrass or belittle others. I have nothing to prove. Does that make me a wimp?

I try to be fair and rational even when someone is trying to provoke me (as you seem to be now). I try to understand what the other person is saying, and not fill in the missing pieces based on how I think. And I try to refrain from yelling at or swearing at people. That's not to say I won't offer a constructive comment, but if my emotions would interfere with that, I would give feedback when I'm more calm.

You consider this restraint being a spineless wimp? I'd say it's an indication of a person's maturity, and your response doesn't show much. I'm not saying you are immature, just that you are hiding it masterfully.

Evidently, you don't value the same traits as I do, preferring the loose cannon of a person who is ready to attack at a moment's notice.

Shall we proceed to the analysis of your response.

Your a dollar short and three months late, David, You have no F^$% ^^&$% excuse for not speaking out against the tyranny.

Clearly you have not comprehended what I wrote to Flint. That is no crime. But instead of politely seeking clarification (after all, my response was to Flint, not to you), you elect to chastise me without making reference to any of my reasons. If someone doesn't take the effort to formulate a concrete criticism, an attempt to debate is bound to degenerate into the kind of name calling that Flint and other pollies suffered on TB2000. You claim to abhor this tactic, yet have no qualms about doing the equivalent against me. Does the term *integrity* mean anything to you?

Even though you immediately launched into insult mode, I will patiently explain what I said to Flint so that you can understand it, that is, if you even care to understand what I was saying.

I said that if I were in Flint's position on TB2000, and like himself, I was having no difficulty putting my detractors in their place, I would prefer that people not come to my aid. To extend Brian's playground scenario, if a child can effectively defend himself or herself against bullying, that is much better than an adult intervening (which makes the child subject to ridicule). Not that Flint wasn't already taking ridicule, but that the expected chants of "poor widdle Flint" would have distracted him from making many instructive points in his own defense.

It doesn't matter if my thinking here was right or not, and even less what you think of it. The point is that not knowing Flint personally or having corresponded with him, I made a judgment based on how I thought I'd react in that situation. If I thought I'd want support in that situation, then I'd have given it to him without hesitating. What else would you suggest.

You owe Mr. Flint and all the non doomers an apology.

An apology for doing what I thought was appropriate, given what few facts were available? You'll have to explain that one to me.

Or else you truly are a bumpkin? (Forgive me, but you have been irritating me for a very long time now, you spineless wimp.)

Truly a bumpkin? You sound like cpr. Perhaps you saw this thread on Gas Options and concluded that I was taking a lot of crap from cpr. I did, it's true, but the reason was that I was truly interested in his views on oil. Eventually, I decided it was futile to elicit useful responses from him, and from that point I set out to provoke him. (Interestingly, his responses got more tolerable after that.)

You say that I've been irritating you for months, yet this is the first time I'm aware of that. You could have posted "bumpkin is a spineless wimp" and I would have come running to cut your argument to ribbons. So who's the spineless wimp.

You should recognize that it's possible to be assertive without being strident or hostile. But if you insist on disliking my stance, feel free. I could care less.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 21, 2000.

Memories

-- of (future@pass.ed), November 30, 2000.