posting, fora, disjointed thoughts..

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

Rambling disertation to follow, ignore if you feel the need....

This forum seems to be slowing down a bit, and, as Stuart Smalley would say, that is OK. I like it, it's good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like it.

But I am curious purple as to why we get so few former regulars from the old original TB2K posting here. Is it the subject matter? Hatred of some posters here? Lady Illogic? Me? Is it my fault? Do I need to shoot anyone?

The format here is one which feels right, no clicking through multi-layered postings of answers to questions. It reads like what the old place read like, and has the wide open feel to it that the old place had back in 98, err 1998.

Another question:

Why did those of you who are posting at EZ feel that you needed to follow ED? "Ed is moving his board". So what? Why did you follow him to that clunky awkward board when this one runs so openly and easily? Who gives a crap which board has Ed's blessing? Hell, I must admit that I am surprised that so many folks who called others "sheeple" follow him blindly to a board that loads so SLOWLY!!!! Click to read each answer? Man, gimme a break! I would post this question to EZ board but I can't remember my frickin password! Like I said, clunky and awkward.

Am I clueless? (don't answer that one, answer the other better questions)

Anyone? Anyone at all?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 02, 2000

Answers

It's you. You're deodorant isn't effective.

-- (Smelly@arm.pits.), April 02, 2000.

Who ya talkin bout Unk? I'm here. What else could you want?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), April 02, 2000.

Hi, Unk. You might find some of your answers here:

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002tDS

-- (luv ya@unk.dee), April 02, 2000.


Unc,

There is an option on EZ to "view all replies at once." I'm not sure, but you may have to be registered to see the option.

As for why, I guess it's because many of the "group" moved there. The whole "banning" issue really ticked me off, and I did threaten to not post there at all. But after thinking about it, I deceided that I still have friends there that I do enjoy, so what would it prove if I didn't talk with them? But I am STILL mad as hell about the whole Flint, etc. thing.

I've been so darn busy lately, that I haven't had much time to post there, or here!

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), April 02, 2000.


Sysman, I feel so neglected. =)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 02, 2000.


Polite discourse versus raucous, ribald drivel; civility versus boorishness; class versus uncouthness.

-- (myopinion@aol.com), April 02, 2000.

UD:

I'll say here what I said to MM there. Depends on what you call an "auld" regular. I have been visiting this board (posting or not) for a very long time. I don't recognize the names of most of the people on EZ board. Of the people I would consider old regulars, most are here. I could be wrong; I haven't been keeping a list and checking it twice. I don't see anything wrong with that. As Diane was fond of saying "Shift happens". While I could be wrong "part two", I think it is possible [no names mentioned} that some of the old regulars who have left were trying to sell things. This doesn't seem to be a buying crowd :o).. Gotta go; time to plant the kale [in the rain].

Best wishe

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 02, 2000.


Uncle,

All is well,those that prefer uncensored conversation are here or will be.Those that prefer walkind in a neat little straight line marching to the tune that Ed gives his blessing to are elsewhere.

When the split went down you woulda thought ed owned the internet in as much as Al invented it.I myself, as I have said before, can't believe that so many would have so little backbone as to cowtow to the dictates of one,especially given the supposed predisposition to authority that many old TB2000 posters espoused.

I would have been willing to learn the ez format but it is not worth the price of admission or the cost of diminished freedom.

Bottom line for moi is I would rather be cursed and kicked by the polly's in a free forum than be afraid to speak my mind or risk being banned in a closed cell.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 02, 2000.


My feeling is that those who were concerned about y2k as a technical problem are satisfied that the problem was appropriately addressed. Discussions about how some people decided it would melt down the world, couldn't or wouldn't change their mind, and in some cases still expect it have been fairly well covered. Essentially, people see what they choose to see whether it's there or not.

Meanwhile, there are those for whom the technical issues were secondary (Anita's theory). For them, y2k was Yet Another Example of how the world is going to hell in a handbasket, everything is going wrong, and in most instances you could reverse what's happening and it would *still* be wrong. If you prefer a negative outlook on life, you can always find negatives to keep you "happy".

But for those of a more positive bent, there's a distinct lack of focus. Almost everything actually does go right almost all the time. Nobody writes news articles about it. Where do we go now, and why? I think most forum regulars have wandered off to continue their lives.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 2000.


I said it on another thread, and I'll say it here.

This board has become the New DeBunkies. The filth and hate spewed forth from the likes of Y2Kpro, CPR et al made it unlikely, if not impossible, for the "old regulars" to stay here. Also, many of the folks at the "new" site, upon registering, changed their handles. There were even several threads on that topic, so people could re- learn who was who.

You see, freedom of speech is always a good thing, but hate-speech and threats drove many away from here. Also, LL and pro's's CONSTANT DoS attacks left many to feel that it really wasn't worth the misery and verbal abuse of posting here.

And yes, if you're a "registered" member of the EZ-Board, you can view the posts essentially the same way as you do here.

So, you DeBunkies over here have a good time playing with yourselves. The rest of us don't want or need the bullsh*t you blast forth. And it really has nothing to do with the differing "philosophies" of the boards. We just like a calmer, more polite, rational discourse than you folks do here.

Pretty simple, really. (BTW, I KNOW that I'll get flamed for this post. It just proves my statements are correct.)

Buh Bye now...

-- Yeah Right (Ahhhh@haaa.haaa.haaa), April 02, 2000.



Uncle! Just re-register under another name and write your password down. As for posting, what's to say? The flowers are blooming, the sun is warm, it's time for making whoopie outside...

-- helen (home@the.farm), April 02, 2000.

Yeah right:

What are you seeing that I'm not? Since this forum started, I've seen no DOS attacks from anyone. On the old forum, Y2K Pro never made a single DOS attack. The only really vicious personal attacks I've seen here are from (or involve) "Hawk", who is the very anthesis of a debunker -- he's someone who will believe *anything* so long as it's negative, and argues that the the very lack of any evidence "proves" he's right.

If you can find a single example of what you'd consider "filth and hate" from either Y2K Pro or CPR on this forum, could you point it out? I try to keep up with what's posted here, but I certainly haven't seen any such thing.

If this board came even close to meeting your description, I'd join you in expressing my disgust. But I must confess I simply have not seen any of what you describe. You seem to be trying to describe what you think the prior y2k board might have become, if the censors had kept up their efforts. Or maybe you're trying to convince yourself that this current forum will devolve into what you so hope to see, even though it hasn't done so and shows no sign of doing so.

And certainly I wish you well on the EZB forum, politely discussing Yourdon's agenda or else. I grant this board is more freewheeling, but I sure don't see any of what you're talking about here.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 02, 2000.


I thought your post was jointed , Unk. Of course everyone KNOWS it's all your fault, but no one wants to be unkind. Since I just pulled your leg, you can pull my finger. [grin]

As Flint stated, many folks have wandered off to continue their lives. For some of us, wandering off to the computer room IS a continuation of life. The other parts of life will dominate once the weather clears.

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 02, 2000.


Uncle D--- I imagine it is the name "Ed Yourdon" that gets them. I admit to being no end impressed when he sent me an email. I have friends who write books. The books have titles like "Estimating and Costing for the Metal Manufacturing Industries" by Creese et al. They are not sitting in stacks at Barnes & Nobel.

What I don't understand is why more people were not outraged by the banning of the posters.

This forum seems to be getting a hard edge to it. I wouldn't mind a more gentle tone. Like Z1Y47 planting kale in the rain. Kale, great stuff. It did make it through a winter in northern Pennsylvania in our garden.

You see, I have been debating for days about starting a thread telling you all that we now have 51 new lambs. It has been a wonderful year. But, each time I start to post it, I think well, maybe I better not. So I'm tucking it in here.

Hubby, head shepard, maintains a '60's AC Cobra is THE car. I'm still holding out for an MG TD.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 02, 2000.


I'm with those who said many of the regulars from the old board have gone on with their lives. Just before the split, there were many who were entering "good bye" posts. Some of those have come back, but most, I am sure, are on neither board.

I also agree, to a small degree, with the poster who stated neither board is like the original-This is inevitable. Like they say in my AA fellowship, it just takes a resentment and a coffee pot to start a new meeting. In my experience, I have seen this happen, and neither meeting is like the original, for awhile. What will spark this board are new people, and former lurkers who have become active posters here (like myself).

On the old board there appeared to be many more new posts, but in reality, a good deal of them were by Carl Jenkins and Homer Beanfag (what are their new names here? Who is Viewer@justpassingby?). The discourse here is enough to keep me interested, like the vermont law thread, and the constitution thread I started. I think we are morphing into a discussion as to overall ills in society, and exlanations of these ills. This is okay with me.

Like Flint said, on the other board are a lot of the people who were doomers no matter how much evidence to the contrary. They are still over there saying the end is near.

Thanks to all who have made a home here. I have not posted at EZ and will not.

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



Since I didn't find out about Yourdon and TB2000 until after the rollover, I don't know who was a regular and who wasn't. One of the things that bothered me about TB2000 was that the most outrageous stories were not only accepted but encouraged. You got thanked profusely for posting about UN white busses and martial law signs but attacked as a "gubmint shill" or moron if you even asked for any evidence that some of this claptrap was true. What I like about this board is that those who believe in conspiracy theories, chemtrails, global warming or lack thereof, et al, still post but are at least asked to provide some evidence to back up their statements. I've learned things from some of those posters even when I didn't agree with them and I hope they've learned some things also. This type of give and take is what makes this board interesting to me.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 02, 2000.

Pam:

51 new lambs is pretty neat. My 6 new bean plants pale in comparison. I never tried kale, but if I have to plant it in the rain, I don't want any part of it. Does it taste like fish, or peanut-butter? [grin]

I don't know quite what you mean by this forum developing a sharp edge. Could you explain that?

I think I understand why folks on the EZBOARD didn't object to the censorship. SOME folks simply don't want to be anywhere near people who disagree with them. SOME folks just don't LIKE some people and want to be where the people they don't like aren't included. I referenced a thread from this forum in chat in the past week to a poster on the EZBOARD forum. His response was "THAT forum? I stay away from THAT forum because I don't like X and Z, who post there."

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), April 02, 2000.


There is a lot of disagreement at the ezboard forum. It is handled in a respecful and courteous manner though, not like here.

This forum is also very anti-Chrisitan. Those that argue against the Biblical Christian perspective tend never to have read the Bible. It is very boring to constantly be told you are wrong when the person who is disagreeing with you is operating on emotion and feeling rather than interest in what the Bible truly says.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), April 02, 2000.


Nancy:

I guess it depends on your understanding of disagreement. Most of the disagreement I've seen has to do with things like whether Clinton is a traitor or an outright foreign agent. As of this morning, most of the messages seem to be about vaccines and how they are bad for us. So far, I haven't seen one poster disagree with this rather ridiculous hypothesis.

It's also not clear to me why you think this board is anti-Christian. There have been an number of posts by people with Christian beliefs. Those with other beliefs posted their opinions as well as those supporting the original poster. Do you believe that any opposition to a person's belief automatically makes an entire board anti-Christian?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 02, 2000.


This forum seems to be slowing down a bit Yeah -- but I don't feel like looking at a dull screen now that the temps are getting warmer and the women are starting to lie around outside again.

The market may crash, but I suspect that even that event won't stop some of the younger ones from engaging in their annual tan maintenance rituals.

And, no, I'm not a dirty young man. I just live in the North, where all but the really stupid remained fairly well covered until about April or so...

-- (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 02, 2000.


One thing not considered is the possibility of time to post and research events worth posting, and the profile of the board players. I get the impression that the Uncensored group is tied up with work and/ or school (undergrad and post grad)and the retired or lesiured contingent is too reticent to interrupt the livlier discussions (in which the participants seem to know each other "off the board"). GICC is stable, the EZ Board reflects the possibility of a more leisured life style. Seems to run in cycles. When something controversial happens, this board will pick up again.This particular group, younger and older, just require a little more stimulation to get invovled actively. In the meantime, people still lurk, just don't "make time" to participate. Sort of like a pride of lions basking in the sun-throw raw meat into the group and watch what happens.

-- mike in houston (mmorris67@hotmail.com), April 02, 2000.

Unk,

I really think you need to start "telling it like it is"... no "beating around the bush" OK? Just speak you mind... OK?

(snicker)

snoozin'...

The Dog

-- The Dog (dogdesert@hotmail.com), April 02, 2000.


Hi Anita-- If you put on enough Thousand Island dressing even cardboard would taste good. Kale with it is delicious and was my answer to spouting all those wheatberries for salad greens if y2k was a 10.

Yep, for a hobby, 51 lambs from 34 ewes is pretty darn good. For three weeks our lives have been consumed with making little things live. It gets pretty intense. Probably why I just couldn't handle the idea of a mean God in an earlier thread.

You have bean PLANTS in April?!

The Pollys have been vindicated--hoooray! But as a doomer, I couln't trust they were right; I could only hope they were right.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 02, 2000.


Jim, if someone tells me that he/she believes that the Bible is not true, or that the God of the Bible is not the true God, that is fine. I respect that person's right to his/her opinion. I may ask a couple of questions to find out why this person thinks such a way, and encourage this person to read the Bible, but that is it. It's the reverse that's bothersome. I do know scripture. When I apply a Biblical concept or point out error or state that certain behavior is clearly sinful I tend to get a lot of grief heaped my way....including scripture misapplied and taken out of context by some who I don't think have ever even opened a Bible. It is sheer emmotionalism from that point forward....intelligent discussion is not possible. There are also many on this forum who are Christian and provide very thoughtful replies.This is refreshing. It is not the disagreement that is disturbing...it is the vehemence of the attack that is disturbing. No, the whole forum is not anti-Christian, but if ever emmotional and vitriolic ad hominem attacks take place against a Christian...it is certainly here.

Concerning forum content, today is a slow day both here and at ez board. Vaccines. Well medicine took a wrong turn in 1970s. Its time to look at what we've reaped. I think a lot of people are just getting information on vaccines, not assenting one way or another.

Disagreements? Well it's mostly Christians posting over on ezboard. By nature, a lot of Christians agree on a lot of things. Disagreements occur on the intellectual level, not the emmotional level.

Thankyou Jim,

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), April 02, 2000.


I think the only reason the "old" board survived at all through 99 was because of the "trolls" and "pollys" (and the percieved 'threat' that they represented)

Go look through the Misc catagory and do a search for the word "troll" or "polly". Count the number of threads.

Do the same for the general awareness, uncategorized, or any other category. There are literally thousands and thousands of posts that exist because the kind, gentle "GI's" wanted to BASH someone.

You should all thank the polly/trolls/debunkers!

-- (proud@polly.org), April 02, 2000.


Nancy:

Thanks for the reply. You've always seemed like a kind and thoughtful person and your reply confirms that for me.

I must ask you to think about a few things that you've written. One is the phrase "state that certain behavior is clearly sinful I tend to get a lot of grief heaped my way". What is clearly sinful to you may not be clearly sinful to another. For example, a Roman Catholic may believe it's clearly sinful to eat meat on Fridays during Lent. That's OK and he shouldn't eat meat on those days if he wants to follow the teachings of the church. To suggest that others are commiting sin by not following this rule will almost certainly provoke a negative response.

Another thing that interested me was your statement that "Well medicine took a wrong turn in 1970s. Its time to look at what we've reaped." I wonder what you mean by this in relation vaccines? We now have a world without smallpox, where polio and measles are almost extinct in the developed world, and most of the pandemic diseases that killed millions in times past are things that humans no longer have to worry about. Most of this is due to vaccines. I'm loath to say that we took a wrong turn when the benefits seem so clearly obvious to me. Go to any old cemetary and see the numbers of children that died before they were five and tell me if you think that the times before vaccines were better.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 03, 2000.


Thanks for the encouragement Jim. I appreciate it.

I don't mind it all if someone displays a negative attitude towards me because I point out bad or immoral behavior. What is surprising is the vehemence of the attacks. I find it interesting that forum participants that pride themselves on their intelligence revert to name calling and other childish behavior when the error of their ways is pointed out to them.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), April 03, 2000.


Bad turn in medicine in the 70s....Jim we are an extraordinarily unhealthy society. Cornell came out with a white paper last year that said that 100 million Americans with arthritis, heart disease and diabetes were weighing down the system. The health care system, the whitepaper said, was not designed to deal with this many sick people. This begs the question,exactly what is the health system for? By the way, this 100million Americans did not include those with cancer or neurodegenerative disorders.

Childhood diseases cycle as epidemics. If that was not so none of us would be here. There are many reasons why children got these diseases and did not survive...poor sanitation, unhealthy diet,poor or no ventilation....the fact is, kids are vaccinated today and can still get the same disease months after vaccination.

Thanks Jim,

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), April 03, 2000.


Yeah Right, I'm not flaming you. But I will tell you this. I have never in my life, anywhere, anytime, by anyone, had the amount of "hate and filth spewed forth," towards me that I had on the old TB forum. And it didn't come from Y2K Pro or CPR either. "Polite and rational discourse!!!! Not from that bunch. I have never had anyone on this board slam me like those maniacs. Mere disagreement was reason enough for them to go into maniacal hate rages.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 03, 2000.

Nancy:

The internet sems to attract people who have very passionate views and those who are either irreligious or athiest will jump on a believer quickly. As I remember from my Bible readings, Jesus didn't usually speak to friendly audiences either. Regardless of how others perceive your beliefs, it's your right to witness for them as well as the right of others to witness for their beliefs.

I haven't seen the Cornell white paper you refer to and would pleased if you could give me a link. I need to be convinced that we are an extrodinarily unhealthy society. We now live longer than ever before in history and many of the killer diseases have either been cured or are on the way to a cure. People are generally in better health with less disabling diseases than in the past. As we age as a society, there will certainly be more people who need health care but this is a normal part of the aging process.

I have done a lot of geneology research on my family and, in the process, have visitied many cemeteries. The number of children who died 100-150 years ago from smallpox, measles, chickenpox, polio, mumps, and diptheria is truly sobering. All of these childhood killers are now gone. Some of the reason is due to improved sanitation and diet but the main reason is vaccination. No mother should have to bury her child because of a preventable disease.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 03, 2000.


Hi all,

I see fascinating, rational, civil discussions on both forums. Although I've spent the majority of my time on the EZ Board, I've started to post a little here as well, and hope to get more involved.

Outside of the issue with Flint, Hoff, et. al., which still puzzles and disturbs me, individuals who are seen as potential spammers, and a lower tolerance of profanity, I'm really not sure what y'all mean by 'censorship' on the EZ Board. Banning someone because he or she had a different view of Y2K, however, would make no sense at all.

Since as far as profanity goes, this forum censors as well (I've heard), the fora just reflect two different levels of toleration. And because I see profanity as not very relevant to putting points across in rational discourse (I do know that some like or need the emotional release at times, myself included), I don't understand why eliminating profanity would be a real issue, in any case. Of course, if things started to go PC, we could certainly have a big problem.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.


"if things started to go PC????" What does that mean?

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), April 04, 2000.

eve:

Perhaps without realizing it, you make some telling points here:

1) Yes, without question Hoff, Jonathan, I and who knows how many others were banned for having a different opinion about y2k. This is outright censorship in raw form. I simply cannot see how you can say in consecutive sentences that you are "puzzled" by such bans, you think it makes no sense, yet you are not sure what we mean by "censorship"!

2) Your mention of "individuals who are seen as potential spammers" is worth a couple of comments. First, interesting that you use the passive voice here. WHO is making this judgment? Second, you will notice that *actual* spammers don't exist, here or there. Clearly this is a case of somebody deciding that someone else is guilty and banning them even before they have the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. Eve, this is called censorship.

3) No profanity has ever been deleted from this forum. I would imagine you "heard otherwise" on the EZboard forum, where (of course) those who would point this out to you are not permitted to post saying so. And again, you are careful not to mention WHO you heard this from.

In fact, after some startup trial and error, the only deletions I've seen have been of duplicate threads inadvertently started by someone. And those duplicates have been deleted *at the request* of the person who accidentally submitted a post twice.

Finally, since you haven't spent much time here (and I wouldn't expect you to comb through 10,000+ posts looking), I can tell you that nearly all the profanity and personal attacks and general attempts at disruption have been directed at individuals formerly known for their optimism. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that some people from the EZboard (always anonymous) resent the bejeezus out of the success this forum has enjoyed, and would dearly love to render it useless.

Near as I can tell, the most significant difference between boards is that on this board unsupportable assertions are met with demands for documentation and rational justification. On the EZboard, such assertions are met with polite agreement on the whole, exemplified by discussions of the details while the basic underlying assumptions go unchallenged.

And *that* is the point you seem to be missing. On the old TB2K, certain posters were "disappeared" as soon as the thought police found them. On the EZboard, those posters aren't even permitted to post in the first place. That is censorship.

Think about this, eve. There is, as you are well aware, very fundamental disagreement as to the existence or meaning of many of the reported problems, among the many contributers. The very lack of such disagreement on the EZboard is critical. On the EZboard, people are permitted to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Those who don't believe in angels are banned. So long as you believe that there are invisible angels dancing on pinheads, you won't be able to *see* the censorship.

So the EZboard, like it (or admit it) or not, is a place where those who got y2k totally wrong can exercise the thought processes that enabled them to be so wrong, and apply those processes to just anything, without fear of contradiction or interruption.

If you want to repeat the same mistakes in peace, and can't see that it's an enforced peace, fine. But that enforcement is what we mean by censorship.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 04, 2000.


I think eve meant "Politically Correct"

Youre welcome

W

-- W0lv3r1n3 (W0lv3r1n3@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.


Jim, the Cornell white paper was printed through Dr. Edward Campbell. It will take a little time but I will run it down and find a link. I am an RN back in college for a second, totally seperate educaton that has nothing to do with medicine. We are sicker as society now than we were 20 years ago. There is an increase in ALL chronic diseases including cancer. TB has not been eradicated, it is coming back with a vengence in a multidrug resistant form. Many diseases are coming back multidrug resistant. Many people are living longer years, true. There have been medical advances in this area....but don't rule out the effects of genetic pre-disposition.

Expresing opinion. I agree 100%. I want to hear what the responder has to say........if the emmotionalism and name calling is removed. I want very much to hear the other person's perspective but it is not possible to do so when the responder is off on his/her own tirade whipped up in a subjective frenzy.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), April 04, 2000.


C'mon now, eve.

The "bannings" may have been many things; but puzzling wasn't one of them.

-- Hoff (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), April 04, 2000.


Gilda,

Yes, by "PC" I meant "politically correct."

Flint,

You said,

[Yes, without question Hoff, Jonathan, I and who knows how many others were banned for having a different opinion about y2k. This is outright censorship in raw form. I simply cannot see how you can say in consecutive sentences that you are "puzzled" by such bans, you think it makes no sense, yet you are not sure what we mean by "censorship"!]

Re-read the first sentence in my second paragraph. I did indicate that you were censored; although I do have some issue with the terminology: People are banned, ideas are censored. Either way or both, not allowing you to participate was wrong. If I had worded it in a less than clear manner, I apologize.

You said,

[Your mention of "individuals who are seen as potential spammers" is worth a couple of comments. First, interesting that you use the passive voice here. WHO is making this judgment? Second, you will notice that *actual* spammers don't exist, here or there. Clearly this is a case of somebody deciding that someone else is guilty and banning them even before they have the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise. Eve, this is called censorship.]

I assumed that the owners/operators made this judgment. And the issue here is that, based on their judgment, I am assuming that one or more people were banned who had a history of spamming elsewhere (i.e., attempted to do damage to or destroy another forum/fora or individuals' rights to use that forum/fora). I mean, for example, when you hire someone, you'd like to know if they had a history of problems on similar jobs. It's called taking the full context into consideration.

For another analogy, Chamberlain took Hitler's peace offering because he'd cut off everything else Hitler had ever done or written/spoken that he'd do from the context. And you know what happened next...

In banning the spammers, the owners/operators, with the implicit or explicit agreement of the participants, are simply preserving and protecting their right of free association. Seen in this light, the fact that the spammers were 'never given a clean slate' on the new forum should appear perfectly natural.

And it's very hard for me to have to say this, because I really like Laura (LL), for example. I think that overall she's got a lot of character and is a sweet person. But on the other hand, I could understand any fearfulness on the part of the owners/operators of the EZ Board regarding her past actions (geez, I'm already getting a lump in my throat...)

You said,

[No profanity has ever been deleted from this forum. I would imagine you "heard otherwise" on the EZboard forum, where (of course) those who would point this out to you are not permitted to post saying so. And again, you are careful not to mention WHO you heard this from.]

No, I read that in a thread right here, about this forum, a few weeks ago. But, alas, since I can't remember the thread, I'll withdraw the charge.

You said,

[Near as I can tell, the most significant difference between boards is that on this board unsupportable assertions are met with demands for documentation and rational justification. On the EZboard, such assertions are met with polite agreement on the whole, exemplified by discussions of the details while the basic underlying assumptions go unchallenged.]

Sounds like an 'unsupportable assertion,' Flint. :)

You said,

[And *that* is the point you seem to be missing. On the old TB2K, certain posters were "disappeared" as soon as the thought police found them. On the EZboard, those posters aren't even permitted to post in the first place. That is censorship.]

As I said before, with respect to spammers at least, it's protection against possible destruction of the forum, based on past observations.

[Think about this, eve. There is, as you are well aware, very fundamental disagreement as to the existence or meaning of many of the reported problems, among the many contributers. The very lack of such disagreement on the EZboard is critical. On the EZboard, people are permitted to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Those who don't believe in angels are banned. So long as you believe that there are invisible angels dancing on pinheads, you won't be able to *see* the censorship.]

I really don't know what you're talking about here, Flint. I've seen, and been in the middle of, violent disagreement all over the place there. You just won't see profanity along with it.

You said,

[So the EZboard, like it (or admit it) or not, is a place where those who got y2k totally wrong can exercise the thought processes that enabled them to be so wrong, and apply those processes to just anything, without fear of contradiction or interruption.]

Now it's really starting to sound like you haven't even lurked there. And linking someone's error in judgment on one issue to an overall conclusion on his/her thought processes in general is a rather large leap of faith on your part, don't you think?

Hoff,

I said "puzzled" because I am. Since it makes no sense that you guys would be banned just because you disagreed about Y2K, I'm puzzled as to why you were banned. But see below...

Flint and Hoff,

If in fact you guys were banned only because you disagreed about Y2K, then that's wrong. It would then be censorship. As far as I can tell, it's more likely that this is the case. But keep in mind that I only started reading the forum in mid-'99, and I certainly didn't catch everything. There's a lot I don't know about you guys, although in my personal experience overall, I think nothing but the best of you. Your posts seemed for the most part to be rational, thoughtful and civil. But because my experience with the old forum, and therefore most of your posts, is limited, I have to place reservations on my opinion.



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.


Eve (hi there -- hope you are well!), you wondered about the bannings and the censorship. I have no doubt the people you mentioned were banned for the reasons Flint indicated. But perhaps someone can tell me why *I* was banned from the EZ forum? I **NEVER ONCE** posted to the old TB2K. Yet, when I did a little experiment and tried to sign on to EZ, I was met with the screen that said "YOU ARE BANNED". Of course I LMAO as I expected that to be the case, but still I wondered *why*. Guilty by association, perhaps? I call that *censorship*. (Funny thing is that they don't even know WHAT they are censoring in me because I never posted to TB2K in the first place!! You can't make this up.)

So if it wasn't a mass banning of "debunkers" and those who disagreed with the old TB2K "party line", then how can one explain it?

(Not that it keeps me awake at night, mind you. Just kind of curious is all. How can one be expected to follow "the rules" when they appear to be made up as you go along? That was rhetorical.)

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 04, 2000.


forgot....these childhood diseases are not wiped out. The kids get boosters now because it was found, surprise, that months or years after recieiving the vaccine children still got the illness. So much for the life time immunity that was promised. Also, it is being found that adults (20-30 yo) who completed their full immunization schedule as children are picking up these "childhood" diseases. Ever seen a 25 yo with mumps, measles, chicken pox, etc.? They're out there.

nancy

-- NH (new@mindspring.com), April 04, 2000.


Hi, Patricia!

I'm doing fine, thanks...you too?

Well, you know this is now starting to blow my mind. As far as I know, you had to be one of the sweetest, most civil posters at Debunkers. It's starting to sound like some sort of mass ostracism took place. Did you try to e-mail Ed or the sysops to find out why?

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.


Eve, no I didn't. Not worth the bandwidth it would waste. "Y2K" is simply over for me. I have so many other things going on in my life, though I must admit that I enjoy watching the conversations on this forum many times. This is the first time I've "jumped in", but I've seen a couple of other discussions I may join as well (depending on time constraints).

I would never post over on EZ so it isn't "in my cards" to find out why I was banned. I just found it incredibly amusing. I think the funniest part of all this nonsense was watching the "sysops" at EZ attempt to first explain away the "bannings" and then to censor anyone who tried to get an actual explanation. As far as I was concerned, that little scenario alone should have been more than enough to show anyone what their game was/is.

It seems there are those who do not mind such antics. Pity, because as Anita is fond of saying, I don't *want* to post on a forum where everyone agrees. How boring that can be. But I guess some people don't want actual debate; simply virtual nods of assent and virtual "pats" on the back. Their loss.

JMHO, and not to collectively label the entire original TB2K (just a few select members), but I didn't really expect anything better from them. I watched what went on prior to and just after the rollover. I'd be surprised if ANYONE was surprised at their current/recent actions.

BTW, "sweet"? Oh, there are SOOOOOOOOOOO many people who would (rather vehemently) disagree with that, but thank you for the kind words!

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), April 04, 2000.


Patricia,

What happened to Flint and Hoff had always bothered me, but seeing your posts really piqued my interest. Maybe I'll go back in the archives over there and see what went on. I know there were some censorship-related threads I hadn't read -- there were quite a few of them at the time, as I recall.

Thanks for your input, Patricia. I know you're busy, but I do hope to see ya around more...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 04, 2000.


eve:

I guess we both have the ability to see what we want to see. I admit I don't lurk there much, but what little I've seen is very buttoned down. You can argue about *what* the chemtrails are poisoning you with, you can argue vehemently about *who* belongs to the oppressive conspiracy, you can argue about just how evil those who manipulate and prop up the market are, etc. What you can't do is mock the stupid paranoids who buy into any of this nonsense in the first place. And as Jim Cooke has often written here, you can post preposterous claims all day long (in polite language), and never have to worry about supporting them.

Patricia's post ought to start giving you a bit of a clue. The censors had a Nixonian "enemies list", consisting of anyone who ever posted on an "enemy" forum, or anyone who expressed anything short of admiration for Yourdon. Before they had to run away and hide, they were overwhelmed with the task of combing through every thread determining which posts were by "forbidden" people, and deleting them, often making the entire thread incoherent. And these people were NOT spammers, nor profane. They were guilty of pointing out just how stupid the moderators and high-profile doomies really were. Now that some time has passed, maybe you can think back (or even look back at what hasn't been, uh, "cleaned up") about all the personal attacks aimed at me or Decker or Hoff, NONE of which were ever deleted. Nor were those posters ever even mentioned. EVERY ONE of the deleted people disagreed with the moderators, and committed NO OTHER unusual sin. If you consider this pure coincidence, I cannot help you.

Do you sincerely believe that your censors are just basically good hearted people doing a good job, who just happened to have a bad day and decided (totally out of character, mind you) to start banning people right and left. Polite, thoughtful people at that? And when challenged by a majority of those who were permitted to challenge, responded by saying SHUT UP and deleting the challenging threads?

Eve, you may not believe this or share this viewpoint, but most people recognize "or else" when they see a threat. Banning disagreement is censorship, plain and simple.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 04, 2000.


Nancy said: "There is a lot of disagreement at the ezboard forum. It is handled in a respecful and courteous manner though, not like here.

This forum is also very anti-Chrisitan. Those that argue against the Biblical Christian perspective tend never to have read the Bible. It is very boring to constantly be told you are wrong when the person who is disagreeing with you is operating on emotion and feeling rather than interest in what the Bible truly says."

nancy

Nancy, what part of "who gives a rip WHAT the bible says? Since some of us do NOT give a rip, why would we have an interest in what it says? It's a moot point--not waste our time.

Do you want to study some book I recommend?

-- jumpoff joe a.k.a. Al K. Lloyd (jumpoff@ekoweb.net), April 04, 2000.


Unk, just my own disjointed answers to your questions here.

Where do you get the idea that this forum is slowing down anyway? I've been spinning my wheels all day trying to keep up with just a few threads, which had long and content rich posts. I think you perhaps feel that way because the old TB2K forum became rather hyperkenetic the last few months before the roll-over, and are just feeling the "let down" symptoms of a wild party being over. Don't you remember in late '98 throuh mid '99 how slow the board could seem at times and we would just discuss absolutely anything and everything just to make things interesting? Well seems to me we're back to that now on here.

Do like me, pick a few interesting threads and try to really contribute to them. Keeps my mind from spinning idly and overheating ;-)

About why some chose to move to EZboard and why others come here, and still others left the scene entirely, many have explained my views on this already, but I'd like to add that there are people who feel the need to follow, and others who rebel against following any strict rules, and want to make up their own minds. Those are two extremes still, there are those in the middle who don't feel uncomfortable hoping in both environment. I guess I'm a rebel that way.

I don't feel melancholy at having lost our old time atmosphere and "society", the fact that I've let myself being mislead by it makes it easy for me to make the transition to this new environment. The people posting in here, old timers and newcomers alike, are just as interesting as ever (minus the childish trolls ofcourse, but I'm not paying much attention to them. They too need to learn and be challenged ;-) )

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 04, 2000.


Nancy:

Going back to school again must not be easy - I know it wouldn't be for me. I wish you success in your studies.

My wife is also an RN who now gives phone advice for an HMO here. She worked ER for many years and finally decided that she didn't want to touch patients any longer. Can't say as I blame her.

As an RN, I'm suprised that you believe that chronic disease is getting worse. I posted some cancer statistics here on another thread that show that the rate of cancer, with a few exceptions, is declining, not increasing. The rates for diabetes, heart disease, and strokes are also decreasing, which is all the more encouraging given the fact that our society is aging. Of course, as we live longer, we will all be subject to more illnesses, but things still look they're improving to me.

As an example, both my parents are in their mid seventies. My dad had what would have been a fatal heart arrythmia 20 years ago that they are able to fix using a pacemaker. My mom had prolapsed aortic valve that couldn't have been repaired 20 years agon but was successfully repaired 5 years ago. Both of my parents would be dead today if it hadn't been for some of the wonderful advances that medicine has made. Instead, they are both active and healthy.

Certainly there are some adverse affects to anything including vaccines. Everything that we do is based on at least a perceived cost/benefit ratio. The small number of people with adverse reactions to vaccines, while lamentable, should not be used as evidence why all vaccination should be stopped. Many of the postings I've seen on this subject at EZBoard are totally unsupported by any legimate testing and are anecdotal reports. As someone trained in medicine, I'm sure you know why public health decisions based on this type of evidence is a bad idea.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Jumpoff Joe:

I'm a little confused by your reply to Nancy. It sounds like you're saying that since you don't give a rip what the Bible says, Nancy should't post anything about or from the Bible here. If this is a correct assumption then I'm suprised you feel this way. First, Nancy has a perfect right to post references to anything she wants. We've certainly had some stranger references here than the Bible. Second, whether you believe in the Bible as divinely inspired or not, it has some excellent truths and guidance that can be used to anyone's profit regardless of their religious beliefs.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Hello Eve,

Well, I am glad I found your post on my once a week foray here. :) As one of the banned, I *did* write Ed Yourdon as well as others asking three questions: None of which were answered. In fact, my mail to them was not even acknowledged.

1)What did I ever do or say to get assigned to the ban list?

2)What rule did I violate?

3)Can you cite the example, please?

They seem like easy questions; but if you know me or read *every* single post I made to TB2000, you will find I never violated a single rule. In fact, I adhered to the rules *far* more closely than other *sactioned* posters.

At any rate: here's the EZboard discussion about me, that I couldn't participate in. :)

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdoncensorshipbanningdebates.showMessage?t opicID=8.topic

And here is the link to the original discussions on the original TB2000.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002hHU

Flint was the closest, I think... I 'consorted with the enemy.' Hoffy also pointed out that I had the nerve to 'give Stephen Poole a voice' on a completely different site. How dare I! :)

At any rate, the email is real if you wish to discuss it further, and the censorship still exists. I often said that the debate about censorship would be continuing long after Y2K was a far off memory...

Jonathan

http://www.q-a.net/origi.html

-A computer glitch did not bring about the end of civilization. Banning the ideas of those who disagreed will not change that fact one whit.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 05, 2000.


I wonder if Uncle Deedah forgot he posted this thread?

-- Which way (did@he.go?), April 05, 2000.

Mornin' Flint,

You said:

[I guess we both have the ability to see what we want to see. I admit I don't lurk there much, but what little I've seen is very buttoned down. You can argue about *what* the chemtrails are poisoning you with, you can argue vehemently about *who* belongs to the oppressive conspiracy, you can argue about just how evil those who manipulate and prop up the market are, etc.]

Well, you just proved your own point...as it applies to you, in any case. That is, your 'examples' have only to do with conspiracy theories. But you curiously omit the threads on philosophy, psychology, the rights of man, the role of government, religion, the sciences, and so on...

You said:

[What you can't do is mock the stupid paranoids who buy into any of this nonsense in the first place.]

I became involved in a thread in which conspiracy theories were raised. I asked them to support their theories and they did their best, with long lists of governmental actions over the course of decades. I further talked about the difficulties of suppressing conspiracies, the system of checks and balances, the separation of powers, etc. etc. And many of them did their best to address these points. The neat thing here was that the whole thing was civil, interesting angles were raised, and folks, including myself, came away having learned something. Although the viewpoints were in many cases diametrically opposed, it seemed to me that everyone enjoyed the debate. In fact, it's on its third thread, with probably hundreds of posts. Why do you feel the need to mock these people? If you think they're misgiuded, give them rational argument -- teach them something.

You said:

[ And as Jim Cooke has often written here, you can post preposterous claims all day long (in polite language), and never have to worry about supporting them.]

I haven't read Jim's posts, but if you approached this objectively, I'm sure you'd see this phenomenon in both fora. In my experience, I've seen no difference between the fora in this regard. And since the fora are made up of individuals, all of whom are unique, and many of whom post in both fora, if you reflect on this a bit you'd see that Jim's claim remains only that -- an unsupported assertion with likely no basis in fact.

And even if you guys came up with examples it wouldn't matter, because what you'd really need would be representative samples from both populations -- an enormous task, which I'm sure no one's ever done.

But perhaps Jim's statement was instead meant to convey the idea that one can post things there without fear of profanity being slung at them, and therefore would feel more at liberty to state any absurd claims at their whim. If this is what he meant, so what? Most people would see through these posts and either ignore them or ask for support. If support was not forthcoming, the thread would probably be abandoned. I don't see what the big problem is here.

You said:

[Patricia's post ought to start giving you a bit of a clue. The censors had a Nixonian "enemies list", consisting of anyone who ever posted on an "enemy" forum, or anyone who expressed anything short of admiration for Yourdon. Before they had to run away and hide, they were overwhelmed with the task of combing through every thread determining which posts were by "forbidden" people, and deleting them, often making the entire thread incoherent. And these people were NOT spammers, nor profane. They were guilty of pointing out just how stupid the moderators and high-profile doomies really were. Now that some time has passed, maybe you can think back (or even look back at what hasn't been, uh, "cleaned up") about all the personal attacks aimed at me or Decker or Hoff, NONE of which were ever deleted. Nor were those posters ever even mentioned. EVERY ONE of the deleted people disagreed with the moderators, and committed NO OTHER unusual sin. If you consider this pure coincidence, I cannot help you.]

Flint, with the 'enemies list' exception below, I can't challenge you on these details, because I don't have enough information. I do plan on looking up some of those old threads, though. But it's too bad that I won't be able to read the deleted posts.

I will say, though, that the 'enemies list' thing is starting to look frighteningly real -- especially after seeing Patricia's posts.

You said:

[Do you sincerely believe that your censors are just basically good hearted people doing a good job, who just happened to have a bad day and decided (totally out of character, mind you) to start banning people right and left. Polite, thoughtful people at that? And when challenged by a majority of those who were permitted to challenge, responded by saying SHUT UP and deleting the challenging threads?]

I'm not challenging your specific, detailed claims, but to take an incident like this and expand it to cover someone's entire character ('good' v. 'bad') really makes no sense. Please stay away from the latter types of statements and insinuations, Flint.

You said:

[Banning disagreement is censorship, plain and simple.]

Agreed.

Hi Jonathan,

Nice to meet ya. First, forgive me for not mentioning you in my posts above, but I'm really much less familiar with your posts than with the others.

You said:

[As one of the banned, I *did* write Ed Yourdon as well as others asking three questions: None of which were answered. In fact, my mail to them was not even acknowledged.

1)What did I ever do or say to get assigned to the ban list?

2)What rule did I violate?

3)Can you cite the example, please?]

Very disappointing that you apparently were ignored. Do you know if any of the participants there asked these questions as well (in behalf of you guys)? If so, are you aware of any replies?

You said:

[They seem like easy questions; but if you know me or read *every* single post I made to TB2000, you will find I never violated a single rule. In fact, I adhered to the rules *far* more closely than other *sactioned* posters.]

I don't doubt you. I've seen only a couple of posts of yours, but from those you seem like a nice guy.

You said,

[Flint was the closest, I think... I 'consorted with the enemy.' Hoffy also pointed out that I had the nerve to 'give Stephen Poole a voice' on a completely different site. How dare I! :) ]

Well, since I'm kinda, sorta 'consorting with the enemy' now, I wonder...:)

My time is pretty limited right now, Jonathan, but I appreciate your e-mail invite. I might take you up on it. And thanks for the URLs; I'll check 'em out.



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Jonathan,

Just in case you're short on time and would skip over my last post that addresses Flint first, not seeing that my response to you was 'buried' at the end -- know that I meant to format it so that my response to you stood out, but it didn't turn out that way.

And if you gan get through my sentence above without coffee, you're doing pretty good. I mean I had problems when I looked at it -- my eyes just glazed over -- but I'm just too tired to change it...:)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Hi eve,

I'll do my best to answer some of your points here. You say, "Why do you feel the need to mock these people? If you think they're misgiuded, give them rational argument -- teach them something."

Uh, eve, please recall that I am not *permitted* to do so. I have been censored away. But before the censors ran away to their own closed forum, I provided over a year (and over 3500 posts) of rational argument. Which is precisely *why* I'm no longer allowed to do so. Whether you choose to recognize this or not.

As for your "feel the need" comment, why does anyone post here? I always enjoyed exchanging viewpoints and perspectives with people, and really did try my best to consider others' posts on their merits. When my efforts are met with flames and personal attacks (and you know very well I was called an idiot, a moron, an asshole, a shill, etc. in MANY posts that didn't bother to even address the issue I was discussing), what response would you suggest? While you might disagree, I think those who amply deserve mockery should be mocked. If they kept to the subject, so did I.

"Jim's claim remains only that -- an unsupported assertion with likely no basis in fact." Well, this is a matter of perspective rather than fact, perhaps. From my occasional reading of the EZboard forum, I'd have to say that Jim characterizes it with deadly accuracy. But I agree this is a general description, kinda like saying better-looking people tend to be hired preferentially. Yeah, you can argue all day about tastes and exceptions and whatnot. But that doesn't render the characterization baseless. The pattern Jim highlights is so distinct you have to *refuse* to look at it in order to miss it.

(As a footnote, one of the things I notice about your approach is that you confuse being slippery with being reasonable. If someone points out a pattern, you say "Gee, I don't know because my knowledge is not exhaustive." If someone like Patricia points out that she NEVER posted to TB2K and was STILL banned (so there CANNOT be a single post that violated any rules), you say "Gee, I just can't understand that, it puzzles me. But I still don't see any censorship." If someone quotes or links to an actual example, you say "Gee, how can I possibly know if this is representative?" So if you don't want to accept something, facts don't help (you don't ever have them all), patterns don't help (they are "likely baseless"), etc. It's like if you prefer not to accept that 2+2=4, you claim that you haven't been exposed to the sum of EVERY POSSIBLE COMBINATION of two numbers, and therefore, gee, you *just can't agree* without complete knowledge! Eve, you don't need to eat the whole egg to know that it's rotten.)

"But it's too bad that I won't be able to read the deleted posts." Yeah, "too bad" indeed. Did you ever read Orwell's "1984"? Winston Brown's job was to rewrite the history books every time Big Brother changed his mind about what happened in the past. All references to what Big Brother decided didn't happen were removed. The "official history" of the old TB2K forum is exactly like this. The record of all the posts that were deleted, and all the people who got "disappeared", only exist any more in our memories. Those who choose to remember out loud are banned from saying so. My God, woman, what more do you want?

"to take an incident like this and expand it to cover someone's entire character ('good' v. 'bad') really makes no sense." Uh, which incident to you refer to, eve? The banned list incident? The disappearing posts incidents, ALL by optimists? The incidents where those who disagreed were invited to leave, while the profane attackers who agreed with the moderators were never chastised? The practice of killing a threatening thread by pasting in an unrelated 10K article to make the thread unreadable and take forever to load? The refusal by ANY moderator to explain the bans, and the deletion of threads asking for such explanation? Can you see any pattern here?

Look, I'm not simplifying anyone's character into good vs. bad. I am trying as hard as I can to illustrate the *policy decision* that was made and enforced, over a LONG period of time, and at GREAT EFFORT, to suppress dissent. And please don't say "Gee, I really can't say about that because I can't read the deleted posts." Does it make sense to you to claim you can't see the censorship because the censors deleted the evidence? Sheesh!

By the way, like Jonathan, I also sent private email asking why I was banned and what rules I broke. Yourdon claimed it was the moderators' decision, and not his position to explain it. Most of the moderators (those who answered) said it was the *other* moderators' decision, so they couldn't explain it. One moderator said it was *Yourdon's* decision. NOT ONE person who bothered to answer claimed to agree with the decision, NOT ONE could provide a single reason for it. And I apparently must continue to repeat -- when those who were permitted to challenge the bannings did so and demanded an explanation, they were told to SHUT UP by Yourdon himself, and the threads asking the question were deleted! NO explanation was ever provided.

Some years ago, a gas escaped from a military base in Colorado, killing several thousand sheep in an adjoining pasture. The military brass showed up to deny they had anything to do with this. The meeting was held in a house in the pasture surrounded by dead and stinking sheep, so that the windows needed to be closed and the air filtered. The ranchers said "What do you mean, nothing happened? What about all those dead sheep?" And the military denyers said "Sheep? What sheep? We don't see any sheep."

Eve, ever been in the military? Those people sound just like you talking about the censorship. "Censorship? What censorship? I don't see any censorship." And you're not "consorting with the enemy" because this forum has no enemies. Everyone is welcome to say whatever they want. If you can't understand how discussion is shaped by banning those with "disapproved" opinions, there's nothing I can say to open your eyes.



-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 2000.


Jonathan,

This message came up when I followed your link to the ez board:

"The post you selected no longer exists. It may have been recently deleted."

Do you have an updated address, or a copy of the discussion?

-- flora (***@__._), April 05, 2000.


flora,

There was a space in the URL. This one works:

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdoncensorshipbannin gdebates.showMessage?topicID=8.topic

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), April 05, 2000.


I just wanted to point out ONE thing here. The deletion of expletives on the EZBOARD forum is handled by the software. I know this because I set up an EZBOARD forum myself and checked the box to allow no profanity. If you LOOK, you will see that posts discussing airplanes will have cockpit replaced with $%(!pit [or other non- alphameric characters to remove the word that COULD have been considered in poor taste.] I chuckled recently when a response I made to Invar on the EZBOARD [in which I included something about "Yes, they gave me some shit about it...] had the s word totally replaced with characters denoting "expletive deleted."

Lusenet does not have this feature. The person who set up this forum for us doesn't have the time nor chooses to take the time to delete expletives that most consider quite normal in conversation.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.


You know Eve, it's really very simple. There's noone left on EZboard to give an opposing view of Y2K's after effects from Ed's view. No one. Ed is free to say anything going unchallenged. All the other topics being discussed and debated on there are only a side entertainment, so it's not a direct challenge to Ed or his followers on Y2K views. The purpose of TB2K's websites is/was to discuss TimeBomb 2000, the book as written by Ed Yourdon. Now it's purpose is to discuss Y2K's after effects. You disagree with Ed, you are a polly, and you are banned. Plain and simple.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.

Oh, and it has nothing to do whether you are polite or not. Please, take the time to read INVAR's JBD Saga on the old TB2K. (It could not be reposted on EZboard as it would not be readable through the word filter there.) It was acclaimed by doomers and some sysops as being hilarious. JBD was a polly, tortured in unimaginable ways by the twisted mind of INVAR, the author. Jimmy Bagga Donnuts was a nice guy from NJ who was an optimist, but was flamed by INVAR, Milne et al and started posting as the troll JBD to get back at them. I exchanged private emails with JBD, but didn't dare letting my fellow doomers know lest they'd flame me and treat me like him too.

Only now do I realize just how vulnerable to "peer pressure" I was, afraid to speak up as much as I wanted, against the "party line", i.e. defending the position of anyone considered a polly on any topic, no matter Y2K related or not.

EZboard has all of the elements of a cult following, and Ed has the charisma of a cult leader.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


Now, Uncle...just look what you started!

For "eve"- The Deleted Threads Forum. This is NOT an exhaustive list, but you will understand after reading just a few of the threads there, that the common theme is

"no posts from people we don't like, no posts from isp's we suspect are being used by the 'enemy', no posts from people who want to point out a double standard!"

Also, the reason you don't think you see any censorship, is because the jackboots deleted....ERASED THE EVIDENCE....threads that even discuss the issue! Talk about making themselves look better! they can just claim "Why, whatever are you talking about (x)? There has been no censorship! do you see ANY threads discussing censorship? Don't be silly! Now be a good little sheeple and fall back in line...."

I noticed that someone caught the old forum trying to erase the link to THIS forum as well. They will stop at nothing it seems, to "sweep their reps" clean!

LOL!

-- (jackboots@re.jackoffs), April 05, 2000.


Thanks for the link...actually took a look around...didnt see anything out of the ordinary. I said before, I'll say again...THERE are just a FEW people you DO NOT give Power to.....

hint hint,,,, 'shift happens and the infamous *Sigh*

Unc, THE GOOD ARE HERE!!!!! We have fun here and are at many times obnoxious, if others dont like it tis okay too.

TOLERANCE......

As for the bible/christian debates, I REFUSE to get into any of those, I respect the bible and those who chose to live it.

When you see me get ugly, usually its cuz I'm trying to be funny or IF I am cursing at someone, they have said something to REALLY push my button.

Doomers., pollies, so WHAT? I just thought this was a discussion board, doesnt seem like much but different topics, and some mud fights, which is FINE by me....

But Uncle Deedah, we all know you sir are....THE BOMB!!!!!

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Eve:

We have talked before. Your seem to be a nice person [even for a grass snapper]. You also seem to be naive. I have seen you attempt to negotiate the non-negotiable and apologize to people who didnt deserve apologies. You are always welcome here; but you left during the time when this change occurred. Trashing the other board is not my style. Wow, isnt Al Gores invention wonderful, I can reach you from anywhere in the world.

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Eve, honey, I can't believe what I'm reading.

Your can't possibly doubt that censorship occured at the old TB, and here, can you? I don't have time to dig out the old posts today, but if you need ABSOLUTE proof I was banned for turning polly, I'll make the time sometime this week. I swear to you, it was immediately (one to three days, as I recall) after I turned polly on our last oil thread. I asked the sysops at least three times why they were calling me a troll; (a copy of what Diane said is in the archives) and no one ever gave me a specific answer. Eve, I can show you a post where I was telling people I was being deleted everytime I made an optimistic statement, and it was then that I got so frustrated I started getting nasty and spammed (of course, I didn't know what spamming meant at that time, and when I asked no one ever told me.)

What they did was/is wrong, eve. It's just plain wrong, and I think you of all people know I wouldn't lie to you. I have a tremendous amount of love and respect for you, and I've always been straight-up with you.

I have a ton of stuff I have to get done this week, but if you don't find the truth in the archives, I'll put my old posts here as soon as I can.

TTFN!

(P.S. I know how to hack Ed's password protection, and if I weren't so darn busy with more important things, I'd be over there spamming the crackers out of that forum. Fortunately, for him, I don't have the time, or inclination to keep chasing the son-of-a-bitch. I have more fun things to do,...like write love letters to Mr Polly! [Don't worry, we won't subject you guys to our private lives anymore] Gotta go!)

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 05, 2000.


Opps,

"occured at the old TB, and here, can you?"

I meant the old TB and EZBoard,/b>.

Thanks for everything, OTFR! I promise to be more careful of what I say in the future :o)

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@....), April 05, 2000.


LL:

Just a question; what does EZBoard ,/b> mean :o). Just wondered.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Ha, ha, Z1X4Y7!

",/b>" means I get into too big a hurry to close my tags properly! If you have some free time, will you come by and clean up my messes for me? I'll pay you well. How about a dollar per post? You'll make a fortune, by the end of the month! :o)

(Jeeze, that means I'd better start using a spell checker. Forget it!! I'd rather turn in lousy papers and get a bad grade!) VBG

Better wishes,,,,,

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 05, 2000.


LL:

Just a joke. No big deal. I once hot linked a whole thread. Good because they could only reference my site :o). Sysop fixed it.

Even bestest [have no idea how to spell this] better wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


You're playing around on the computer today too, huh?

Most betterest wishes,,,

(If you try to top that, you're more retarded than I am. LOL! :o)

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 05, 2000.


Hi Flint,

You said,

[I'll do my best to answer some of your points here. You say, "Why do you feel the need to mock these people? If you think they're misgiuded, give them rational argument -- teach them something."

Uh, eve, please recall that I am not *permitted* to do so. I have been censored away. But before the censors ran away to their own closed forum, I provided over a year (and over 3500 posts) of rational argument. Which is precisely *why* I'm no longer allowed to do so. Whether you choose to recognize this or not.]

I understand. I was really only referring to your desire, not what you were able to pull off.

You said,

[As for your "feel the need" comment, why does anyone post here? I always enjoyed exchanging viewpoints and perspectives with people, and really did try my best to consider others' posts on their merits. When my efforts are met with flames and personal attacks (and you know very well I was called an idiot, a moron, an asshole, a shill, etc. in MANY posts that didn't bother to even address the issue I was discussing), what response would you suggest? While you might disagree, I think those who amply deserve mockery should be mocked. If they kept to the subject, so did I.]

I suggest that if they won't listen to reason and can't be civil, you walk away and/or ignore them. You'll leave them with the greatest advertisement for their crassness and ignorance -- their own words. And many times this is much more powerful a commentary on their character than anything you or I could ever come up with -- politely or not. If you're not used to this method, it can seem easier said than done, but give it a try. It really works.

You know, the posts that make me least angry are the ones where the poster flies into an irrational rage, hurling nothing but insults at me. The way I see it, the poster is not using his/her mind to confront me, so it just turns into a bunch of noise. Kinda like if a parrot swears at you -- it means nothing. Besides, when people act like this, it means that they aren't able or willing to argue on the merits -- so, essentially you've won the point.

You said,

["Jim's claim remains only that -- an unsupported assertion with likely no basis in fact." Well, this is a matter of perspective rather than fact, perhaps. From my occasional reading of the EZboard forum, I'd have to say that Jim characterizes it with deadly accuracy. But I agree this is a general description, kinda like saying better-looking people tend to be hired preferentially. Yeah, you can argue all day about tastes and exceptions and whatnot. But that doesn't render the characterization baseless. The pattern Jim highlights is so distinct you have to *refuse* to look at it in order to miss it.]

I'll take a hard look at this, but since I don't yet see it, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree for now.

You said,

[(As a footnote, one of the things I notice about your approach is that you confuse being slippery with being reasonable. If someone points out a pattern, you say "Gee, I don't know because my knowledge is not exhaustive." If someone like Patricia points out that she NEVER posted to TB2K and was STILL banned (so there CANNOT be a single post that violated any rules), you say "Gee, I just can't understand that, it puzzles me. But I still don't see any censorship." If someone quotes or links to an actual example, you say "Gee, how can I possibly know if this is representative?" So if you don't want to accept something, facts don't help (you don't ever have them all), patterns don't help (they are "likely baseless"), etc. It's like if you prefer not to accept that 2+2=4, you claim that you haven't been exposed to the sum of EVERY POSSIBLE COMBINATION of two numbers, and therefore, gee, you *just can't agree* without complete knowledge! Eve, you don't need to eat the whole egg to know that it's rotten.)]

Of course I agree that you don't have to eat the whole egg to know that it's rotten. And the use of a representative sample backs that up precisely. You select a small number from a much larger population for examination. You then extrapolate the sample results to the population. You never examine the whole egg.

I'll concede that perhaps you could make a convincing case without even a representative sample. But out of many thousands of posts (tens of thousands?), you'd have your work cut out for you, wouldn't ya?

Flint, if someone I don't know says to me that they saw that 8 of 10 eggs in a new closed carton were rotten (see Jim's comment) I think it would be reasonable to want to take a look. In other words, to me no pattern was ever pointed out in the first place. So, your, '...if someone points out a pattern...' comment begs the question. It asks me to start out by accepting an unsupported premise.

The only thing that exists here so far is an assertion. Anyone in the world can assert anything at all, but that doesn't mean you have to accept it as fact until it's disproved. That's the impossibility of being asked to prove a negative -- to prove an arbitrary assertion is not true. For example, I say to you, "There's a convention of gremlins on the planet Venus right now discussing the merits of Coke versus Pepsi. Prove that it isn't true." See what I mean?

Re Patricia: When did I say that she wasn't censored? I believe that she was.

You said:

["But it's too bad that I won't be able to read the deleted posts." Yeah, "too bad" indeed. Did you ever read Orwell's "1984"? Winston Brown's job was to rewrite the history books every time Big Brother changed his mind about what happened in the past. All references to what Big Brother decided didn't happen were removed. The "official history" of the old TB2K forum is exactly like this. The record of all the posts that were deleted, and all the people who got "disappeared", only exist any more in our memories. Those who choose to remember out loud are banned from saying so. My God, woman, what more do you want?]

Flint, hold on a minute! I agree that it looks like the same thing has happened here. I'm just not yet in a position to say that the analogy is absolute. Can't you accept that for now?

You said:

["to take an incident like this and expand it to cover someone's entire character ('good' v. 'bad') really makes no sense." Uh, which incident to you refer to, eve? The banned list incident? The disappearing posts incidents, ALL by optimists? The incidents where those who disagreed were invited to leave, while the profane attackers who agreed with the moderators were never chastised? The practice of killing a threatening thread by pasting in an unrelated 10K article to make the thread unreadable and take forever to load? The refusal by ANY moderator to explain the bans, and the deletion of threads asking for such explanation? Can you see any pattern here?]

Sure it appears to be a pattern. And if you want to break up what I called 'an incident' into a bunch of related smaller 'incidents' that's fine with me, but it doesn't affect the point I was trying to make. I hope you can see that.

You said:

[Look, I'm not simplifying anyone's character into good vs. bad. I am trying as hard as I can to illustrate the *policy decision* that was made and enforced, over a LONG period of time, and at GREAT EFFORT, to suppress dissent. And please don't say "Gee, I really can't say about that because I can't read the deleted posts." Does it make sense to you to claim you can't see the censorship because the censors deleted the evidence? Sheesh!]

Can't see the censorship? I've told you over and over, in I don't know how many different ways that it looks like you guys were censored. After I saw Patricia's posts the whole thing became more evident -- sort of like an egg tempura painting where with each layer the picture becomes more and more clearly defined.

(To the artists out there -- please don't beat me up over the egg tempura thing -- this is based on a vague recall.)

You said:

[By the way, like Jonathan, I also sent private email asking why I was banned and what rules I broke. Yourdon claimed it was the moderators' decision, and not his position to explain it. Most of the moderators (those who answered) said it was the *other* moderators' decision, so they couldn't explain it. One moderator said it was *Yourdon's* decision. NOT ONE person who bothered to answer claimed to agree with the decision, NOT ONE could provide a single reason for it. And I apparently must continue to repeat -- when those who were permitted to challenge the bannings did so and demanded an explanation, they were told to SHUT UP by Yourdon himself, and the threads asking the question were deleted! NO explanation was ever provided.]

If true, I can't imagine a reason for this type of treatment of you. I mean doesn't the accused deserve at least an explanation?

You said,

[ And you're not "consorting with the enemy" because this forum has no enemies. Everyone is welcome to say whatever they want.]

You got me wrong here, Flint. I was referring (sorta tongue in cheek) to me consorting with you guys, in the view of the 'others.' And I was wondering what could happen to me...

You go on in your post indicating that I don't think you've been censored. I do believe you were censored. But was it justified? Based on what I know -- no, I don't think it was.

. . .

Hey Anita,

Now that's funny! :)) (two grins, not a double chin).

You know, instead of actually laughing, my mom would many times just say, "Now that's funny." And if it was really funny, she'd just say it louder. In real life I laugh a lot -- but using LOL all the time in posting just seems to get old with me, so I thought I'd give you a dose of my mom here -- indirectly.

. . . Hi Chris,

You said:

[You know Eve, it's really very simple. There's noone left on EZboard to give an opposing view of Y2K's after effects from Ed's view. No one. Ed is free to say anything going unchallenged.]

Chris, I don't always look at the titles of all of the new threads...but I haven't seen much of anything on Y2K's after-effects over at EZ. It might be because there's no opposing viewpoint, but it might be because most people feel it's all over and/or are simply bored with the topic.

You know, it's interesting that you mention this, because about a week ago I posted what I thought would be a huge Y2K-related topic -- a reference to an article from the front page of the Wall Street Journal on why oil prices rose. I think I got only one or two responses at the most -- from each forum!

You said:

[All the other topics being discussed and debated on there are only a side entertainment, so it's not a direct challenge to Ed or his followers on Y2K views.]

That may be true, but it's only the 'side entertainment' that I and most others are interested in.

You said:

[The purpose of TB2K's websites is/was to discuss TimeBomb 2000, the book as written by Ed Yourdon. Now it's purpose is to discuss Y2K's after effects. You disagree with Ed, you are a polly, and you are banned. Plain and simple.]

It's a sad thing that it looks as if this is indeed the case. Except the irony is that I think the issue of Y2K's after-effecrts is now pretty much a non-issue, with government, religion, philosophy, etc. taking over.

The story about JBD seems very sad. I'd like to take a look at it.

You said:

[EZboard has all of the elements of a cult following, and Ed has the charisma of a cult leader.]

Ironically in theory, it might have been -- but not in practice! Because for the reasons I gave above, there's very little conversation about Y2K any more at all -- and, although I don't read all that many threads here, it seems that it's not discussed much here any more either.

A cult leader needs a message, groupthink and people willing to blindly follow a leader. But since most everyone's interested in other topics now, and the viewpoints are all different on these other topics, there's no effective message and no groupthink. And I (and I'm sure most others) am not there because I want to follow Ed for any reason. I'm there because it's an enjoyable experience for me -- plain and simple. And I come here for the exact same reason. The bottom line here is, though -- where do you see a cult in all this? I sure don't.

Let me re-emphasize something: Yes, perhaps there would be more debates on the Y2K aftermath if none of y'all were banned from EZ, and if more of them came over here. But I really don't think the difference would amount to very much at all. From everything I've seen, most folks are bored with the topic and it's pretty much all over in any case.

. . . Jackboots:

Thanks for the info.



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Hi Laura, Z, and Jonathan:

I just noticed your posts after I posted my last to Flint, et al. I'm really spent right now, so I'll get back to y'all tomorrow, ok?

In the meantime, maybe my last response might help to clear up some of my positions on this. Or maybe it'll muddy them up even further! :)

In any case, just know that these things are what I really believe at this point. I'm definitely not out to offend anyone. And don't forget, I'm here to learn too.

See y'all then...

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Chris,

Where do you get the idea that this forum is slowing down anyway? I've been spinning my wheels all day trying to keep up with just a few threads, which had long and content rich posts. I think you perhaps feel that way because the old TB2K forum became rather hyperkenetic the last few months before the roll-over, and are just feeling the "let down" symptoms of a wild party being over.

Mebbe I mistook a lull in conversation for something else.

I wonder if Uncle Deedah forgot he posted this thread?

-- Which way (did@he.go?), April 05, 2000.

Uncle who? Huh? Me? What was the question again?

Chris again,

Please, take the time to read INVAR's JBD Saga on the old TB2K. (It could not be reposted on EZboard as it would not be readable through the word filter there.) It was acclaimed by doomers and some sysops as being hilarious.

Some of us doom zombies made it clear how we felt about that sick-ass story. INVAR and I mixed it up a lot, there was not much love lost between the two of us. I don't think that Dieter fella much liked INVAR either.

Now, people, please carry on...

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.


Unk, I left out an important word in my sentence, should have said "it was acclaimed by SOME doomers and some sysops...) I think faster than I can type and sometimes important words get left out 8-)

After all, I was one of dem doomers too, eh.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.


No problem, Eve,

I know that life gets in the way of typing. (Thank heavens!)

Even if you never come around to our way of thinking, it doesn't matter to me. You're a nice lady and I like you, so I'm not going to badger you too much about this. I don't expect everyone I know to think the same things I do, online or off,...so this is no big deal.

However, I'd like you to think about how you'd feel if you were banned at EZBoard, and here, when you get up in the morning. It could happen you know. It could happen based solely on your views, or the people you hang around with. (Type around with, in the case of the internet :o) I hope this doesn't happen, but if you try logging on at EZB tomorrow and find you can't get in; you'll know what Patricia, Flint, I, and the others know -- without a doubt -- then. The censorship of dissenting opinions didn't stop at TimeBomb, darlin'.

But, fortunately, life goes on, and I have lots of fun, new things to learn about and talk about. I.T. rocks, and there's a dozen books in my living room I'm going to get started on.

Have a nice night, babe.

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 05, 2000.


Hi Flint

Re: 1984, shouldn't that be Winston *SMITH*, not Brown?

(doesn't detract from your point, I'm just a bit pedantic today)

RonD

-- Ron Davis (rdavis@ozemail.com.au), April 05, 2000.


Ron:

Yes, you're right. Considering I read it 40 years ago and don't have a copy, I'm lucky I remembered the Winston part.

eve:

As for the EZboard people being 'bored' with y2k, that cracks me up. That board is heavily and deliberately weighted toward those who expected the very worst y2k problems and took it most seriously. They were also totally wrong, and exceedingly unwilling to allow input from those who didn't. All of the most vicious and intolerant attackers of the evil pollies live there. And now that rollover has passed, and 3 more months, and *still* nothing has happened, you notice that they almost never mention y2k any more. Amazing! They must be bored with it!

Meanwhile, this forum has had numerous extremely thoughtful discussions about all aspects of y2k, among those willing to admit error as well as those whose expectations were nearly correct. All of us have shown interest in both how we got it wrong, and what actually ended up happening and not happening. Do you suppose there's more than one way of hiding from your errors than slamming the doors on dissent? Like, maybe, pretending y2k never existed, and ignoring it? But 'bored'? Too much.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 2000.


Eve:

You do your best to see both sides of an issue. Are you a Libra?

just curious. I'm too brain dead to comment on this thread which is gaining a life of its own.

-- FutureShock (Gray@Matter.think), April 05, 2000.


Ahhh, Flint!

The smell of sour grapes coming from your direction is overwhelming.

Elbow

-- LBO Grise (LBO Grise@aol.com), April 05, 2000.


Can you blame him? Easy for you to say, you haven't been banned from here or there. At least he's not spamming ;-)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.

Eve:

Since my name was mentioned I thought I'd jump in here. I read EZBoard on a semi-regular basis becuase there are some interesting threads there. As you've said, I haven't done any type of remotely scientific study of the threads and the responses but I have followed a few threads closely. There are several running now on various aspects of vaccintion. To date, there has not been one person who has presented any view counter to the idea that vaccinations, at least, are dangerous, and, at worst, are part of government plot. If the same thing had been posted here, I'm pretty sure the responses would have been a lot different.

The difference I see between this board and the EZBoard is that EZBoard tends to attract a large number of like-minded individuals. This, combined with banning those who won't toe the line, means that most controversies will exist within some pretty narrow confines. Over here, everyone from Hawk to Flint gets to post and we all get a chance to mix it up. No one gets a free ride with their information - we have to support our views or else those that disagree will hop on us quick. This is what I see as lacking on the other board. And, this is what I like about this board.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


Good morning Laura,

Oh, you're just too kind! (those sweet words...I think I got beet red when I saw 'em)

With regard to your experiences...of course I believe you. I guess I just needed to hear it from you. Even though what you said rings true anyway, and even if I'd heard none of the other stories, I would have believed you. (No need at all to bring out all of the old stuff). We go way back, hon (dontcha know), and I feel that I've really gotten to know you. I knew there was something really special about you from the beginning...that's what pulled me to one of your first threads. Yeah, you kinda made me nervous sometimes...but I love ya, girl, and the trust I had and still have in you only grows stronger.

Talk to ya soon, Laura...

Hello, Eve.

Nice to meet ya.

Pleasure is mine. J

First, forgive me for not mentioning you in my posts above, but I'm really much less familiar with your posts than with the others.

No problem I was *much* less prolific and harder to spot. One of the reasons I was surprised to be banned at all; I didn't think too many people *read* my posts let alone *cared* enough to consider them a threat.

Very disappointing that you apparently were ignored. Do you know if any of the participants there asked these questions as well (in behalf of you guys)? If so, are you aware of any replies?

Just the link I gave. Which I see someone else was nice enough to fix. Thanks, Buddy!

I don't doubt you. I've seen only a couple of posts of yours, but from those you seem like a nice guy.

Thank you. Years of practice. For me, it simply doesn't make sense to be otherwise. Boards are about the exchanging and debating of ideasit just seems that to many people disagreeing with an idea is disagreeing with something fundamental to who they are. I don't believe they should feel that way. I may disagree with my father about an issue, but it does not stop me loving my father. So I don't take things personally on the boards. There is no reason to.

Well, since I'm kinda, sorta 'consorting with the enemy' now, I wonder...:)

Heh. I won't tell if you don't.

My time is pretty limited right now, Jonathan, but I appreciate your e-mail invite. I might take you up on it. And thanks for the URLs; I'll check 'em out.

At your convenience. No hurry.

Just in case you're short on time and would skip over my last post that addresses Flint first, not seeing that my response to you was 'buried' at the end -- know that I meant to format it so that my response to you stood out, but it didn't turn out that way.

Nahspotted it without a problem. If you want to be a good researcher, you have to be patient and thorough, which means reading everything. It also means not relying on the Internet as your exclusive source of information. I probably could fire a barb toward a completely different person at this point, but it isn't my way. J

And if you gan get through my sentence above without coffee, you're doing pretty good. I mean I had problems when I looked at it -- my eyes just glazed over -- but I'm just too tired to change it...:)

Actually, I don't drink coffee (and I live on Maui!) I am afraid, as hyper as I am naturally, I might vibrate to another dimension with my first cup. Your sentence got the point across. J

Look forward to hearning from you,

Jonathan

http://www.q-a.net/origi.html

-A computer glitch didn't bring about the end of civilization. Thankfully, we never got to test the panicking people part of the hypothesis.-

-- Jonathan Latimer (latimer@q-a.net), April 05, 2000.

No problem, Eve,

I know that life gets in the way of typing. (Thank heavens!)

Even if you never come around to our way of thinking, it doesn't matter to me. You're a nice lady and I like you, so I'm not going to badger you too much about this. I don't expect everyone I know to think the same things I do, online or off,...so this is no big deal.

However, I'd like you to think about how you'd feel if you were banned at EZBoard, and here, when you get up in the morning. It could happen you know. It could happen based solely on your views, or the people you hang around with. (Type around with, in the case of the internet :o) I hope this doesn't happen, but if you try logging on at EZB tomorrow and find you can't get in; you'll know what Patricia, Flint, I, and the others know -- without a doubt -- then. The censorship of dissenting opinions didn't stop at TimeBomb, darlin'.

But, fortunately, life goes on, and I have lots of fun, new things to learn about and talk about. I.T. rocks, and there's a dozen books in my living room I'm going to get started on.

Have a nice night, babe.

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 05, 2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eve:

As for the EZboard people being 'bored' with y2k, that cracks me up. That board is heavily and deliberately weighted toward those who expected the very worst y2k problems and took it most seriously. They were also totally wrong, and exceedingly unwilling to allow input from those who didn't. All of the most vicious and intolerant attackers of the evil pollies live there. And now that rollover has passed, and 3 more months, and *still* nothing has happened, you notice that they almost never mention y2k any more. Amazing! They must be bored with it!

Meanwhile, this forum has had numerous extremely thoughtful discussions about all aspects of y2k, among those willing to admit error as well as those whose expectations were nearly correct. All of us have shown interest in both how we got it wrong, and what actually ended up happening and not happening. Do you suppose there's more than one way of hiding from your errors than slamming the doors on dissent? Like, maybe, pretending y2k never existed, and ignoring it? But 'bored'? Too much.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), April 05, 2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eve:

You do your best to see both sides of an issue. Are you a Libra?

just curious. I'm too brain dead to comment on this thread which is gaining a life of its own.

-- FutureShock (Gray@Matter.think), April 05, 2000.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eve:

Since my name was mentioned I thought I'd jump in here. I read EZBoard on a semi-regular basis becuase there are some interesting threads there. As you've said, I haven't done any type of remotely scientific study of the threads and the responses but I have followed a few threads closely. There are several running now on various aspects of vaccintion. To date, there has not been one person who has presented any view counter to the idea that vaccinations, at least, are dangerous, and, at worst, are part of government plot. If the same thing had been posted here, I'm pretty sure the responses would have been a lot different.

The difference I see between this board and the EZBoard is that EZBoard tends to attract a large number of like-minded individuals. This, combined with banning those who won't toe the line, means that most controversies will exist within some pretty narrow confines. Over here, everyone from Hawk to Flint gets to post and we all get a chance to mix it up. No one gets a free ride with their information - we have to support our views or else those that disagree will hop on us quick. This is what I see as lacking on the other board. And, this is what I like about this board.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


Oops...my note above was only to Laura. I mean to reply to the others, but my copies of the other posts (that I was going to quote from) got left in my post to her.

Sorry about the mess, folks! (just catch a few z's while you're scrollin' through it...)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


To all,

Does anyone know if the sysops can edit out the mess I made in my last post? . . . Hi Z ,

Thanks for your kind words.

Naive? Yep -- sure am, in many areas. And of course I am, to some extent, in the matter under discussion here. I do know something about it, but I love to learn. And, believe me, it's been a real eye-opener so far.

Btw...I apologize too much? Well, if anything I've done has led you to this belief, I apolo...I mean...um...I guess you'll just have to live with it. :) . . . Hi Jonathan,

Well, you sound better than nice now (...some kinda wonderful?). If EZ's banned you, it's their loss, for sure.

And re the coffee: You know -- sometimes, without thinking, we project our habits and desires onto others. I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood in Detroit (I'm Jewish). Well, as a very young girl (I don't know...maybe 'till I was six or seven), I assumed everyone -- I mean the whole world -- was Jewish!

Take care,

. . . Hi again, Laura,

You said,

[However, I'd like you to think about how you'd feel if you were banned at EZBoard, and here, when you get up in the morning. It could happen you know.]

Believe me, in the middle of this thread I thought it could happen to me, solely because I'm now here 'consorting' with y'all. But there's no way I would let that stop me from talkin' to you guys and saying what I believe. If they banned me because of what I'm saying on this thread...I guess that would give me firsthand experience in what they apparently did to y'all. I then wouldn't feel the need to look up any other threads at all. (actually, I'm now feeling that I don't need to after all, anyway). And I know I'd be welcomed into a new, permanent home with you wonderful folks. . . . . Hey, Flint -- mornin' to ya again...

You said:

[As for the EZboard people being 'bored' with y2k, that cracks me up. That board is heavily and deliberately weighted toward those who expected the very worst y2k problems and took it most seriously. They were also totally wrong, and exceedingly unwilling to allow input from those who didn't. All of the most vicious and intolerant attackers of the evil pollies live there. And now that rollover has passed, and 3 more months, and *still* nothing has happened, you notice that they almost never mention y2k any more. Amazing! They must be bored with it!]

I see this as a couple of dozen or so vocal conspiracy theorists among several hundred (?) posters. Now, I haven't scientifically analyzed this either...just my take after spending quite a bit of time there. But take a long look with a cool, objective eye, Flint, and I think you may notice that something very different is going on there than what you suppose.

You said:

[Meanwhile, this forum has had numerous extremely thoughtful discussions about all aspects of y2k, among those willing to admit error as well as those whose expectations were nearly correct. All of us have shown interest in both how we got it wrong, and what actually ended up happening and not happening.]

Well, as I glance through the titles of the threads here, at least, it seems that it's increasingly difficult to come up with a Y2K thread these days. Don't get me wrong...I used to really enjoy dissecting what happened and how and why many of us got it right or wrong. But there were other topics that I love which were out there beckoning to me -- and I decided to move on. I think that most of us have moved on. I mean, there are so many other exciting, riveting issues out there to discuss, that it's actually a good thing that most of us are now turning to other things...right?

. . . Hey, FutureShock,

You said,

[You do your best to see both sides of an issue. Are you a Libra?]

Well, thanks for the kind comment, but with all due respect I don't believe in astrology. But then again...I'm a Virgo (September 19) and I understand Virgos don't believe in astrology...:) . . . . Hi Jim,

Didn't mean to be critical of ya before we'd even met...I had to respond to Flint, though.

You said:

[I read EZBoard on a semi-regular basis becuase there are some interesting threads there. As you've said, I haven't done any type of remotely scientific study of the threads and the responses but I have followed a few threads closely. There are several running now on various aspects of vaccintion. To date, there has not been one person who has presented any view counter to the idea that vaccinations, at least, are dangerous, and, at worst, are part of government plot.]

Well, with a lack of different, fresh points of view it's beyond me as to why a thread like that would have much of a life. I've spent a lot of time there as well as participating in many threads. In a thread about the Boy Scouts being forced to admit a gay person (for example) opinions are all over the place. Some angles contributed are views on the role of government, constitutional rights an freedoms, values, morality, sexual issues, religious perspectives, psychology, etc. etc.

Jim, believe me, there's a real richness in play over there. And I trust that you'll see it if you're truly open to it.

You said:

[The difference I see between this board and the EZBoard is that EZBoard tends to attract a large number of like-minded individuals. This, combined with banning those who won't toe the line, means that most controversies will exist within some pretty narrow confines.]

I will agree with you only to the extent of the Y2K issue, since that was apparently by design (the banning). Other than that, I really don't see where you're coming from, except that on any topic you'll have individuals who side with one another.

You said:

[Over here, everyone from Hawk to Flint gets to post and we all get a chance to mix it up. No one gets a free ride with their information - we have to support our views or else those that disagree will hop on us quick. This is what I see as lacking on the other board. And, this is what I like about this board.]

Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I see the same things on both boards. In fact, I don't even know why one board would be any different from another in this regard -- since we're all unique individuals who think and respond in a great many different ways. And see my response to Chris -- no cult mentality exists over there -- that I can see, anyway.

Even the conspiracy theorists are unique individuals. So what if they think alike on one issue or even one set of issues? People are enormously complex, with many dimensions.

In any case, doomers and conspiracy theorists seem to me to be by far in the minority, and it's unfair for anyone to characterize a whole forum by these 'fringe groups.'



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


Jim

My last response in the above post is to you. I tried another method of spacing and ended up burying your name...sorry.

Z,

Similarly...the first section of my post is to you.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


Eve,

Don't worry about the sysop cleaning up your mess. We all do it, (Ha, ha! I offered to pay Z to clean up my messes earlier in this very thread!) and everyone somehow manages to understand what we meant. It's no big deal.

And I know I'd be welcomed into a new, permanent home with you wonderful folks. . . .

Hell yeah, you're welcomed here!!! If anybody EVER tries to mess with you, I'll spam this place into a memory! :o)

(Just kidding, OTFR. Please don't have a heart attack.)

I'll see ya later, Eve. I just found a new crack & hack site I want to read. Have a GREAT day!

~*~

-- (Ladylogic@...), April 06, 2000.


Eve, you're not seeing something doesn't mean it's not there, so keep that in mind as you read what we're trying to say. It depends on our frame of mind.

I'll focus on just one point Jim and you discussed, and try to elaborate to make you see what you're not.

Jim said: [.... There are several running now on various aspects of vaccintion. To date, there has not been one person who has presented any view counter to the idea that vaccinations, at least, are dangerous, and, at worst, are part of government plot.]

You responded:

"Well, with a lack of different, fresh points of view it's beyond me as to why a thread like that would have much of a life."

Your making our point for us. There are no different, fresh point of view exactly because those who would, either have been banned, or don't want to post their point of views for fear of being admonished for "not toeing the line", i.e., stirring up controversy that is deemed "kicking the anthill" on Ezboard. I am an RN, and were I to post on EZboard, I would give my own opposing view to vaccination being dangerous. I've done this on old TB2K and here many times. Those threads were long and controversial, which is the type of threads that get people to think and learn, on BOTH sides of the issue. Without such long debates, the people mostly agreeing on a given issue could be very wrong and the fact that no serious contradiction were given to their assumptions (with backing research/articles etc.), and assume that lack of contradictory view points validate their assumptions and/or beliefs (in this case vaccination.)

This is what Flint, Hoff and Decker were doing on old TB2K, coming in to threads where they saw people going astray with what they viewed as reality, or logic, in regards to y2k. For that they were banned by Ed, whom they didn't agree with. Now the sysops have had a taste of censorship and banning and became addicted to it, imposing an atmosphere of "toe the line or else", in effect imposing their own moral code and belief system on anyone who want to post there.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


Chris,

You said,

[Jim said: [.... There are several running now on various aspects of vaccintion. To date, there has not been one person who has presented any view counter to the idea that vaccinations, at least, are dangerous, and, at worst, are part of government plot.]

You responded:

"Well, with a lack of different, fresh points of view it's beyond me as to why a thread like that would have much of a life."

Your making our point for us. There are no different, fresh point of view exactly because those who would, either have been banned, or don't want to post their point of views for fear of being admonished for "not toeing the line", i.e., stirring up controversy that is deemed "kicking the anthill" on Ezboard.]

When you speak of 'not toeing the line,' could you give me just one example, aside from the Y2K issue? I agree that there were many decent people here who apparently were banned from EZ solely because they differed on the Y2K issue. And that was a terrible thing.

But, since Y2K is no longer much of an issue, any 'toeing the line' requirement has evaporated -- it doesn't come into play anymore because there's very little interest in Y2K anymore, anyway. And a quick pass over the threads on either forum will tell you this.

And there's plenty of controversy on other issues. Just read the 'unwed mother' thread, which is pushing almost seventy posts as of this writing and has lots of coarse language (not profanity, but definitely not PC), anger, sarcasm, etc. The people there are really at each other's throats (well, in a cyber-kinda way, anyway). Or the Boy Scout thread that I mentioned above. There are a great many others...all you have to do is look, reach up, touch them, and they'll fall like ripe fruit into your hands.

You said:

[I am an RN, and were I to post on EZboard, I would give my own opposing view to vaccination being dangerous. I've done this on old TB2K and here many times. Those threads were long and controversial, which is the type of threads that get people to think and learn, on BOTH sides of the issue. Without such long debates, the people mostly agreeing on a given issue could be very wrong and the fact that no serious contradiction were given to their assumptions (with backing research/articles etc.), and assume that lack of contradictory view points validate their assumptions and/or beliefs (in this case vaccination.)]

If the vaccination thread is running in the way that you portray it -- and I'm not doubting you -- then it's their loss that they don't happen to have a knowledgable advocate such as you there.

But how can you possibly make a leap from this (plus the Y2K issue) to a commentary on the entire forum with its thousands (?) of threads? What is your reasoning for such a leap? Yes, apparently Y2K views that are antithetical to Ed's are verboten. I accept that, and it's tragic. But how do you get from these two observations to your overall (implied) conclusion that therefore there are probably no controversies on any of the threads, regardless of topic? It just doesn't follow. And it isn't true.

You said,

[This is what Flint, Hoff and Decker were doing on old TB2K, coming in to threads where they saw people going astray with what they viewed as reality, or logic, in regards to y2k. For that they were banned by Ed, whom they didn't agree with.]

From what I know of them, they certainly shouldn't have been banned. In fact, I'm practically overcome with shock and disbelief (even though I 'see' it) whenever I think about this.

Btw...was Decker banned too? I thought I recalled reading something from him to the effect that he was choosing not to post there.

You said:

[Now the sysops have had a taste of censorship and banning and became addicted to it, imposing an atmosphere of "toe the line or else", in effect imposing their own moral code and belief system on anyone who want to post there.]

Well, I definitely need an elaboration here, Chris...Y2K aside, that is.

See ya...



-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


Eve:

Let's try a unscientific but potentially interesting experiment. Let's post identical threads both here and on EZBoard on the following topics:

1. Chemtrails are a government plot to depopulate America

2. All gun control laws of any type are bad

3. The stock market is controlled and manipulated by hidden powers

4. Fiat currency is worthless and gold is going to rise a huge amount in the near future.

I'm willing to bet you a cyberbuck that these 4 threads on EZBoard would have 2 or less responses each that didn't agree with the premise. I'm willing to bet another cyberbuck that no one on EZBoard will ask for documentation for any of the above claims.

Conversely, I'm willing to bet that these 4 topics, if posted here, would have at least half of the responses either questioning the premise or asking for documentation .

You're right that these's not much about Y2K on either board, mainly because even the most hopelessly doomerish person can now see that the whole thing was a bust. However, many of the so-called Y2K issues really had underlying issues that are still being expressed - lack of faith in government, assumption that all corporations lie all the time, the world is controlled by powers we can't see but still think exist, and that any unexplained event is always the result of a conspiracy. I still see these types of concerns as the main themes at EZBoard and I see much less of it here.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 06, 2000.


I was pondering how to answer Eve and then I read your post, Jim. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Lets add to your list this topic: Beastiality, Dr. Laura and Porn. Who's right?

There is such a hot thread going here right now at http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002txJ

Eve, we had a thread like that on old TB2K that was deleted, and it never had a chance to get so fully developed. I wanted to answer you more fully, but I'm braintired right now, it's late in the day.

Jim, Brian, Flint et al, I'm surprised you're not participating in that thread, it's quite civilized and controversial. We could use some male input in there. (Disclaimer: any puns or inuendoes you read into anything I saw is your own imagination.)

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


gawwd...I really am braindead right now. My disclaimer should have read "any puns or inuendoes you read into anything I said is your own imagination."

Didn't I read somewhere that one tends to make slips of the tongue more so when tired?

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


Chris,

Someone beat you to that little experiment, I think about the same time it was posted here. Do ya think?...

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fyourdontimebomb2000.showMessage? topicID=2274.topic

-- flora (***@__._), April 06, 2000.


Good catch Flora.

The same article was posted here on 4/3, and there looks like on 4/4, but there's posts from 4/3 also. Could have been by the same person around midnight.

The thread there though, is hardly an experiment as to how far controversy would be tolerated before the thread and/or posts would be deleted, since the thread died that same day after 13 posts, and everyone agreed (only comments of how immoral it is.) But then again, one could argue that it does prove our point. No discussion whether Dr. Laura had imagined what she depicted, no stance on porn etc. Our thread is still going strong with after 3 days with around 60 replies.

Note that I too agree with their first reactions, that of outrage, and someone even mentioned "behavior modification" which is an idea close to my disensitization argument. But the problem with that is, Hawk who professes to like Ezboard a lot better than here, could not have expressed his opinions as he's done here.

I hope this helps Eve understand my point.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.


Jim,

You said,

[Eve: Let's try a unscientific but potentially interesting experiment. Let's post identical threads both here and on EZBoard on the following topics: 1. Chemtrails are a government plot to depopulate America 2. All gun control laws of any type are bad 3. The stock market is controlled and manipulated by hidden powers 4. Fiat currency is worthless and gold is going to rise a huge amount in the near future. I'm willing to bet you a cyberbuck that these 4 threads on EZBoard would have 2 or less responses each that didn't agree with the premise. I'm willing to bet another cyberbuck that no one on EZBoard will ask for documentation for any of the above claims. Conversely, I'm willing to bet that these 4 topics, if posted here, would have at least half of the responses either questioning the premise or asking for documentation . You're right that these's not much about Y2K on either board, mainly because even the most hopelessly doomerish person can now see that the whole thing was a bust. However, many of the so-called Y2K issues really had underlying issues that are still being expressed - lack of faith in government, assumption that all corporations lie all the time, the world is controlled by powers we can't see but still think exist, and that any unexplained event is always the result of a conspiracy. I still see these types of concerns as the main themes at EZBoard and I see much less of it here.]

Jim, I wont take you up on the bets because I think youd probably win. You raise an excellent point regarding the morphing of the now dissipated Y2K issues into more basic underlying themes, as you laid out. It makes sense and I believe its real  with respect to at least some individuals; maybe many.

Where I hesitate here is whereas you feel that these themes are principal, overriding themes that I assume one could easily spot perusing through the thread titles at EZ, Im not yet so sure. Its true, though, that I havent pored over the titles of the threads to look for patterns of this nature, because I mainly simply look for titles that interest me and then jump in. So Id be uncomfortable trying to contest you on any of this. When I go back there, though, Id be interested in taking a more or less random cruise through, and see what catches my eye.

But you know, even if youre right here -- and I believe you may well be -- it really wouldnt matter much to me, because Ive got many good friends over there and have seen and gotten involved in many fascinating, heated debates on various topics that I could barely tear myself away from. Jim, what I would be willing to bet you is that on any given day you, I or anyone else here (who isnt banned, of course) could wander over there, with little effort pass over the topics you pointed out above (even though they be numerous), and dive in head first into any number of thought-provoking, absorbing battles, covering an array of issues as wide as the imagination, that are going on all the time. And swim to our heart's content. And after all, Jim, isnt that what these fora are all about?

(Chris  Ill try to get to your comments soon)

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.


Chris,

Well, Chris, I read both threads and I found this forum's version fascinating. And I agree with you -- it's hard to imagine a thread like that one in the EZ forum. And it's their loss. I really don't think this one would have been censored in EZ, but it does seem as if the EZ forum has apparently attracted certain types that are less receptive to topics like this.

When you take that together with the fact that I think the environment here makes it more conducive for this type of conversation to take place, the contrast of the two threads and the divergent roads they took, makes sense. Thanks for sharing this, Chris.

Well, it's gettin' late and I'm about to pass out. Talk to you later...

flora,

Thanks for your assistance.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 07, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ