Ken,

When I read your posts, I wonder how old you are. Age is supposed to bring with it wisdom. I can only conclude that you have neither age nor wisdom. You do not perceive that, more often than not, a person's reaction to a problem is motivated by that person's past experiences.

I am 72 years old, a female, and haven't as much formal education as you. I do, however, feel that I have learned a lot more about life. I lived through a depression and saw my family struggle to survive. I lived through World War II and saw the world struggle to survive. After we rebuilt our navy, and eventually won the war, I saw the United States rebuild Japan and other war torn countries through the Marshall Plan. As the old saying goes "We won the battle, but we lost the war"; as the balance of payments deficit attests. At one time the United States was relatively self-sufficient Now we have created a service economy, dependent on other countries to provide the goods that it takes to sustain us. There are other examples of why many people feel that they have been led down the garden path by their government - remember the Korean War and the 38th parallel fiasco. How about Viet Nam?

You are constantly pointing out that the "doomers" are pessimistic and always want to believe the worst. I say to you that many a pessimist got that way by financing an optimist. I am weary of seeing our tax money disappear down the rat holes of nonsensical programs that our officials foist upon us every year.

Now to the crux of this post. I believed that y2k had the potential to be disastrous. I acted accordingly. I was not brain washed by Ed Yourdon or anybody else. Did I believe Koskinen? No. Did I believe you? No. My actions and reactions were motivated solely by my life experiences. Do I believe that we may still have a severe recession or a depression? Yes!

I suppose that you will reply to this post with more of your pontificating about us poor doomers and how we don't have enough sense to think for ourselves and how misled we were. Before you write the first word, you might think about this old Indian adage: "Never judge a man until you have walked seven moons in his moccasins".

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000

Answers

Do you believe you were wrong about your expectations of Y2K?

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

I was wrong about my expectations of Y2K. I thought that there would be more problems than we have seen. I didn't expect a 0-1. I expected at least a 2-3, with anything else (including an Infomagic) possible. I can hear the "pollies" snickering.

I have a family to care for. When the U.S. and Russians jointly man a missile launch tracking facility over rollover, I believe a prudent person would conclude that the military, with all of their access to information that we may only dream of seeing, were unsure about a number of things. If the military wasn't sure enough about Y2K, why would anyone stand on their soapbox and say that they KNEW nothing was going to happen?

Those that said nothing was going to happen because of Y2K either felt, hoped, guessed, reasoned, wished, prayed, or concluded that nothing was going to happen because of Y2K, but they didn't KNOW. They could not have known.

Lastly, for those who understand a risk/return matrix, based on the information that I could gather, and knowing my own financial situation, I concluded that preparing for Y2K was the only sensible outcome for me.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), April 13, 2000.

To hmm:

If you were addressing your question to me about my expectations of Y2K being wrong, the answer is a definite "yes". Hindsight, yours or mine, is always 20/20. But I will add this - given the same lack of clear and concise answers as to whether or not Y2K would be a problem, and the same lack of agreement from those that should know the answer to that question, I would do exactly the same thing again.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

Ken Decker is one of those rare individuals that can end up being nearly correct on an issue and still look like an unhumbled boob.

-- but he's still cheap and civil entertainment (@ .), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

I sense three themes embedded in your post, at least by implication. I think it's useful to separate these out and consider them individually:

1) Yes, people have lived through Bad Times in the past. We've had wars, depressions, plagues, famines, even ice ages. Sooner or later, bad times will come again, we can be quite sure of this. We may not know today what the nature of them will be or when we'll experience them, but it's foolish to deny that they *will* come. But Decker's use of the term "doomer" is NOT being applied to those who are old enough to realize that times haven't always been good and won't always be good in the future. This recognition is nothing to criticize, nor should it be.

2) Y2K itself is Decker's proximate takeoff point. This was a narrowly defined, highly technical problem. It dealt with possible ramifications of computer software incorrectly handling dates. As such, it was (and should have been) very tractable, both to understand and to repair. People recognized that the problem existed, and millions of technical people spent billions of dollars (and hours) finding, fixing, and testing. Bug by bug. It was lousy, boring, tedious, repetitive work that furthered nobody's career. But it needed to be done, so it was done.

No, it wasn't done completely or perfectly, such things never are. The goal was to reduce the bugs to a manageable level, and this goal was met. To anyone capable of viewing the entire effort more or less objectively throughout 1999, it was quite clear that the worst case scenario was being ameliorated adequately. We could never rule out localized failures, but we could certainly rule out the systemic, dominoes view that had frightened us until the actual results poured in.

3) As the TB2K and other fora made obvious, there were people who could not or would not view this progression objectively at all. They deliberately chose to focus on ONLY the worst news they could find, and to interpret it in the worst possible way. They categorically rejected any information to the contrary, and enthusiastically attacked anyone who disagreed. Why?

And given the wide-ranging discussions, it became possible to discern distinct holistic patterns emerging among the True Believers. These people were fearful quite generally, and highly distrustful -- of corporations, of government, of the media, of the economy, of the monetary system, of fluoridation, and of anyone who felt otherwise. And such fears and distrusts were founded on the exact same tecnhique applied to evaluate y2k -- select only the worst possible information, regardless of source, interpret it the worst possible way, and react to any disagreement with reflexive belligerance.

Unlike your realistic concerns about the certainty of periodic hard times, these people see their world as all bad, all the time, and always sure to get worse. And they are quite distinct, IMO, from those who recognized that y2k presented a particular real danger, to be dealt with on its own merits.

Remember that "the coward dies a thousand deaths, the hero dies but once." But the hero still dies of real causes, and in your life you've seen these real causes. These are NOT the people Decker is talking about. He's talking about cowards, whose fears are mostly fantasy, and who must protect themselves by forbidding disagreement because they cannot handle it.

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

Nadine,

You miss the point. The puzzle was (and is) why were the people in a tizzy about preparing for Y2K and only for Y2K. As I have written before I have friends who own generators. The reason is they live in the country and every so often a bad winter storm knocks out their power for several days or up to a week. It didnt happen every winter but often enough that it made sense to have a generator so they could have hot water, heat, and their pipes wouldnt freeze.

It also makes sense for people living in California to be concerned about earthquakes and to have some supplies set aside in case they are there when the big one comes. Ditto people who live in Florida and other areas that have hurricanes with a regular frequency. Yet time after time the posts on the old Y2K board indicated that people who lived in these areas were completely unconcerned (or clueless to use a better term) about any type of preparation until they heard about Y2K. AND then they got in all concerned. This is very selective rationalization.

-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Nadine,

I certainly understand that people's opinions are shaped by life experiences. Furthermore, I have no desire to interfere with your freedom to make decisions based on your personal experiences. Not once during the Y2K debate did I attempt to dissuade someone from making "preps."

This said, I do NOT think personal experiences are reliable as an analytical tool. I know people who had negative experiences with other races. Some have become bigots. I am sure most racists feel perfectly justified in their views. And for many, I am sure these views are rooted firmly in personal experience.

If a racist came along and said, "Sonny, I've been alive for 80 years and I just know a lot more about the Negroes than you do," I would reject this argument. One person's life experiences is hardly the basis for a rational discussion about a complex issue.

Enter Y2K.

Any one person's experience was far too limited to fully analyze Y2K. Ed Yourdon, with his vaunted 30 years of IT experience, was proven wrong. The key to getting Y2K right was moving beyond personal biases and perceptions. Almost all of the Y2K pessimists seemed to have negative outlooks about society in general. Clearly, this bias influenced their decision making on Y2K preparation.

My contention is simple... if 100 open-minded, objective people were to have analyzed the data during 1999, 98 would have reached the BITR conclusion.

For the record, I think the vast majority of the Y2K frightened were good, decent people. Some were quite bright and articulate. They just reached the wrong conclusion, possibly becaused they relied too much on personal experience....

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

The Engineer:

I did not miss the point. I only chose to discuss one point specifically. We moved to a rural area some 26 years ago. We gardened and I canned and froze the vegetables and we raised our own beef. We have been debt free for more than 20 years. Admittedly, we do not live in the lap of luxury but we owe nothing. I, probably because of having lived through the depression, have always been frugal. I believe in people being prepared as much as possible. When I thought the good times might end, with Y2K as the catalyst, I made extra preparations, more for my children than myself. My children have only known good times and can't conceive that anything might go wrong. They would be called "pollies", I suppose.

I thought about all the possibilities. Though I questioned and doubted many times that all the dire predictions would actually happen, in the end I decided that I couldn't risk it. So, I made extra preparations. I purchased items that are made almost exclusively overseas. I bought extra supplies of sugar and coffee - having seen both those items rationed.

Because of my thoughts and feelings, and my experiences, I can relate to the feelings of others that had the same reaction; and I get really,really tired of constantly being told how stupid I am by those who are not old enough to have experienced anything but better times. For their sake I hope they never know anything else because I really doubt they would know how to survive. I don't believe my children would. They have never been deprived of anything they needed and not much of what they wanted. They have never gone to bed hungry, as have I.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

Are you the same 72-year old Nadine who posted on EZBOARD stating that the uncensored forum....well, in a nutshell, TRASHING both the forum and the folks who posted here? This post of yours? on the EZBOARD forum would have been a day or two after you posted the hoax thread here on the uncensored forum and commended those here for enlightenment without flames.

I'm not suggesting there's anything WRONG with posting on both fora. I do it myself. Yet, I don't post on THIS forum out of ONE side of my mouth and post on the other forum out of the other.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

To Anita:

Yes, I posted the "hoax" asking for help because I did not know that I was a hoax. And, as usual, there was an insulting post from someone intimating how stupid I was because I didn't know that it was a hoax.

I don't post out of both sides of my mouth. If you are referring to the comment I made about the good manners of the posters making it such as pleasure to post here - do you not recognize sarcasm when you here it?

And don't be concerned, I have no desire to post here regularly.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

MY confusion. I didn't think you were being sarcastic because at the time I read your thread there WERE no posters who had berated YOU as a person. Of COURSE the information was berated, but that was justifiable. I sure did a double-take, however, when I saw your post on EZBOARD.

I'm not trying to run you off. I just want to be clear on the ideologies behind the names; i.e. if you think *I* stink, I'd much prefer you type that in response to a post of mine than learn about it from reading another forum.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

Hello Nadine-- I hope you do decide to post here regularly. X1Y47 says he's "older than dirt." You're 72. I'm 56. And I wonder if Mr. Decker is not quite young to discount each person's life experiences as being a poor basis for deciding anything. I'm not sure I know what other reference points to use but my experiences.

The tone of this forum has changed in the past week. Lots of civil discourse on a wide range of subjects. Why not come and add your perspective from all the life experiences you have had? Twenty-two year old cutting-edge-programmers are not the only people with good minds.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 13, 2000.

Yes, I posted the "hoax" asking for help because I did not know that I was a hoax. And, as usual, there was an insulting post from someone intimating how stupid I was because I didn't know that it was a hoax.

Are you referring to E.H. Porter's response that "there's one born every minute?" I would say that this is somewhat of a mild ribbing, implying that you were gullible enough to be "suckered." I mean, really, it doesn't seem all that harsh if you were to compare it to something like Ever so often the "big brains"? of the DeBunker crowd (Decker and Flint) try to revive the Y2K debate by analizing why "doomers" believed like they did and why they refused to be enlighted by mental giants such as they. Now they are spewing garbage about how dangerous this forum is. To my way of thinking they are just educated idiots.

So, it's not okay for someone to imply that you were "suckered," but it's just fine to call people "idiots?" (albeit educated ones)

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

Make that "Z1X4Y7" says he is older than dirt.

Apologies. Making way now for the twenty-two year old programmers.

-- Pam (jpjgood@penn.com), April 13, 2000.

Oh fudge, let me try again...

Yes, I posted the "hoax" asking for help because I did not know that I was a hoax. And, as usual, there was an insulting post from someone intimating how stupid I was because I didn't know that it was a hoax.

Are you referring to E.H. Porter's response that "there's one born every minute?" I would say that this is somewhat of a mild ribbing, implying that you were gullible enough to be "suckered." I mean, really, it doesn't seem all that harsh if you were to compare it to something like this post for example:

It is amazing how little the posters to the so called "uncensored board" can find to talk about. The only way they can stir up any interest is by perusing this board and then rudely commenting on the topics here; though admittedly they don't bother to read them.

Ever so often the "big brains"? of the DeBunker crowd (Decker and Flint) try to revive the Y2K debate by analizing why "doomers" believed like they did and why they refused to be enlighted by mental giants such as they. Now they are spewing garbage about how dangerous this forum is. To my way of thinking they are just educated idiots.

So, it's not okay for someone to imply that you were "suckered," but it's just fine to call people "idiots?" (albeit educated ones)

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

It is if they persist in acting like idiots instead of the rational, educated people they purport themselves to be. Ever hear of calling a spade a spade?

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

Yes Nadine, Ive heard of calling a spade a spade so let me say that you appear to be a two-faced, confused old person who travels in and out of lucidity. That do it for you?

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

It is if they persist in acting like idiots instead of the rational, educated people they purport themselves to be. Ever hear of calling a spade a spade?

LOL, so if someone implies that you're gullible, then it's an insult. But if you call people "idiots," well, you're just calling a spade a spade!

Thanks for the clarification.

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

Nadine,

Have you read my response to your original thread? Any thoughts?

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

Nadine,

You posted a hoax apparently because you didn't think it was important to verify the information first even though it would have taken less time to check the information than it did to post it. It may be that you were mistaken about the effects of Y2K due to a similar pattern of thinking.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Ken:

I apologize for taking the thread off-topic. I'm typically quite Spockian, but EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE a human pops out. "I hope you won't think less of me." [grin]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 13, 2000.

Jim,

I received the information from what I thought was a reliable source. At the time, I did not know how to verify it. I am not as familiar with the internet as some of you. I just asked the wrong people for help.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

And why was it that you posted the hoax here? Did you also post the same message at EZBoard? If so, what type of answers did you get there?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

Just out of curiosity, I did a search over at EZBoard and found a post of yours with the same title as the "Your Help Would Be Appreciated" message you posted here. But, guess what? The entire thread had been deleted! I wonder why that is?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 13, 2000.

I received the information from what I thought was a reliable source. At the time, I did not know how to verify it. I am not as familiar with the internet as some of you. I just asked the wrong people for help.

LOL, the "wrong people???" You asked for help and we informed you that the message was a hoax. Anita and I even gave you advice on how to prevent such hoaxes in the future. How does that make us "the wrong people?" If we had not told you it was a hoax, would that make us "the right people?"

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

To all who are concerned about the message I posted that I later found to be a hoax: I posted this message and a request for help to this board, to EZBoard and to Y2K and Beyond. When E. H., none too politely, informed me that it was a hoax and Anita and another person told me how to check these things out in the future, I book marked the page and read it. I then apologized to the posters on EZBoard and Y2K and Beyond and asked that the posts be deleted. If it is not on EZBoard, I expect that is why. However, it has probably been archived. I don't really feel that I owe any of you an explanation as my original post was addressed to Ken Decker and was not your concern.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

Ken Decker uses his real email address. If you have a private issue to take up with him, that's probably your best bet. Anything posted on an open forum is by definition up for discussion.

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

To Sifting:

Another spade. I am old, can't help that, but am not two-faced and am lucid enough to recognize someone who appears to be an ill-mannered brat trying to be smart and succeeding only in being a smart aleck.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

I'm still a nine.

-- Uncle Fred (dogboy45@bigfoot.com), April 13, 2000.

Nadine:

Are you lucid enough to have a description for someone who only dares call a lot of other people idiots while hiding behind mother's skirt? Sad that someone can live 72 years and never mature past age 5.

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

To all who are concerned about the message I posted that I later found to be a hoax: I posted this message and a request for help to this board, to EZBoard and to Y2K and Beyond. When E. H., none too politely, informed me that it was a hoax and Anita and another person told me how to check these things out in the future, I book marked the page and read it.

For reference, the post can be found here. E.H. Porter's exact "none too polite" comment was as follows:

Ah yes, another urban myth. What exactly was it that P.T. Barnum said was born every minute?

-- E.H. Porter (Just Wondering@About.it), April 07, 2000.

Frankly, I would think that a person who has survived The Great Depression, World War II, and other various forms of economic and global turmoil throughout the last 7 decades would not get so agitated at the suggestion that she might have been a bit gullible in this instance. After all, he was just "calling a spade a spade."

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

I detect a generation gap problem here. Nadine's main complaint appears to be the lack of respect she encountered in response to her blunder.

Her generation was used to more respect than the Boomers and Gen X are used to. Respect is something that's eroding with each new generation. Wether that is bad or good is not my point.

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

I detect a generation gap problem here. Nadine's main complaint appears to be the lack of respect she encountered in response to her blunder.

As opposed to the lack of respect when she called people on this forum "educated idiots?"

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

hmm:

As opposed to the lack of respect when she called people on this forum "educated idiots?"

I don't have to strain my memory too much to recall when we were called worse [at times it was deserved]. Hey, she has stuck it out for the whole thread. She deserves respect for that. Most of the EZboard people who come here won't use their real posting names. Go get'um Nadine.

Best wishes,,,,,

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

LOL. Good point, Z.

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

Flint,

If you are refering to the post I made to EZBoard, you misread it. I didn't call a lot of people idiots (and I did preface that with educated) - just you and Decker. To be specific, it followed the statement I made that I had read a post where the two of you were discussing the fact that the EZBoard forum was dangerous and I called it "spewing garbage". I hide behind nobody's skirts. I have never felt I needed to hide. As for my maturity, I will match it against yours any time.

-- Nadine Zint (nadine@hillsboro.net), April 13, 2000.

"As opposed to the lack of respect when she called people on this forum "educated idiots?""

No, my point was simply to point out that older generations expect more respect than younger ones. Hence why I said "wether this is good or bad is not the point".

It's about expectations people of different generations have. My parent's generation for example, went by the philosophy that one had to respect their elders no matter what. Showing respect to elders what paramount. My own philosophy (not speaking for my generation in general, as I'm not sure what it is they expect in general, I'm 39)is that, one should show respect if one wants respect. When I apply this rule diligently, seems to work great for me.

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

Take two, should say "showing respect to elders was paramount", not "what paramount"

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

Nadine:

OK, sorry if I misunderstood your post. It appears the misunderstanding works both ways. I don't recall ever saying the EZboard was dangerous, and it clearly is not. It is censored, it is insular and inbred, and I regard it as a carefully guarded refuge for those who cannot tolerate their fantasies being exposed or their opinions being disagreed with. But certainly not dangerous.

Personally, I'd find myself uncomfortable in an environment where everyone sits around agreeing with one another on the fundamentals. When I lurk there (not often, I admit), the threads I read sound eerily like a church testimony, each contributor repeating basically the same doctrine in slightly different words.

I'm much happier and more at home in a rough-and-tumble situation, where genuine disagreement is encouraged, however acrimonious, and where one must defend one's position with skill and vigor against all comers. I find it challenging and often exhilarating, and it forces us to actually think. In truth, I'm glad those who cannot swim in these waters have a nice, protected home to retreat to. Before, they tended to retreat into foul, mindless attacks, bad both for them and for everyone else.

And as you may have noticed, I did respond to your original post with a long and carefully written reply, neither idiotic nor insulting. If you are now implying that my name at the bottom prejudiced you against its contents, this is unfortunate. But I always post as myself, and my address is always real. This won't change, even though perhaps some people might be surprised by what I say if they didn't already know who was saying it, eh?

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

Nadine,

I haven't seen any archives on EZBoard. Do you know where they are located?

One of the things about posting on the internet in an uncensored forum is that no one gets a pass. Every time you choose to post, you open yourself to the scrutiny of the whole world. Sometimes, people respond nicely and other times people don't. The responses to your post were, for the most part, both kind and informative. The one that implied you were a sucker was, while perhaps not as civil as you'd like, pretty mild. Try posting something like that to an internet news group and see what type of responses you'd get. And, although it's painful for anyone to admit, you were a sucker about this particular issue. You learned how not be a sucker next time and that's a valuable lesson for the young or the old.

The "nice" thing about the other boards is that you can just have your error deleted - here, it stays forever. I tend to think about what I post here with this in mind.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

Jim, don't be to sure about that... there are some topics that would be deleted on sight by the syop of this forum :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

Netghost:

Really? Do tell.......except for blatant advertising (and even then it's a prett relaxed standard), I haven't seen anything deleted.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

Jim... you haven't been around long enough to know what is what, just take my word for it, there are some old topics that wouldn't fit into OTFR's agenda :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

Netghost:

I take it that you know who the sysop is and what he/she would or wouldn't do about posts that "offended" him/her. So, I repeat my question......Do tell, what posts have you seen deleted here? I have made a good number of posts and haven't seen any of mine deleted. How about you?

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

Same here Jim, no deletions... yet.... It all depends on how hardline you get and how close you cut... and yes, I know who runs this place :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

And no Jim, I won't tell you.... OTFR will have to work out their problems with old friends themselves... but one has to wonder why?... why the venom.... :-(

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

Netghost,

Seeing that you know what you know,can you state what agenda you refer to? Just curious: )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 14, 2000.

No I can't... unless OTBR wants to talk about it... I kinda sorta promised :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

Netghost,

I dig,gots to keep your word.But ya can't blame a guy fer askin',curious minds want to know; )

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 14, 2000.

Hey Cap..... I wish OTFR would come over here and clear the air... I won't hold my breath, but one can hope :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

NG,

I guess in the long run it probably doesn't matter,unless it does to OTFR.I'm just content that theres a place for xdoomers,virtuous outcasts,pollys,contortionists,snake handlers,gerbil jugglers and all the rest of these fine folks.

Hell,I'm even kinda burnt on the censorship issue,except when someone tries to defend it/them.Not to cross threads but at least in this dimension, time has a way of allways moving forward.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), April 14, 2000.

And wounding all heels :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

Netghost, if you really do know me, you know I'm not into posting my private life for the world to see. And if you were sincere about what you say, you wouldn't be gossiping here. You're always welcomed to write me at my yahoo email address, or my private one since you know who I am.

-- Old TB2K Forum Regular (freespeech@yahoo.com), April 14, 2000.

OTFR, you say you're not into posting your private life for all the world to see--except in a chatroom perhaps?... I just wondered if you starting this forum had anything to do with soothing your husband's heavy DGI attitude. Didn't you say he wanted you to see a shrink?

Like I said once before, you shouldn't turn on your friends that listened and tried to help you when you needed it most, it tends to complicate your life even more :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

NG,

I don't know who you are. I'd hope at this point we'd be able to rally thoughts of enough content to stand on their own.

Enough, already.

You keep going and I think the result will not be what you seek.

-- flora (___@__._), April 14, 2000.

Do you think I might be the first to be banned?... Will I be the first to make the delete on sight list?

Flora, I know exactly what I'm doing and why... so does OTFR... somethings just can't be swept under the rug :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

NG,

Ok, I have no idea of the 'game'. There are all kinds of folks here, I could never understand why individuals wouldn't have wanted credit for their accomplishments.

We have been graced at times by some inspired performances. I hate to think I'm the only squirrelly member of the audience.

Whoever you are & have been -- brava & bravo -braimissimo!

I hope life is much duller for all of us from this point forward.

-- flora (***@__._), April 14, 2000.

NG,

It occurs to me that you have something important to contribute, & that I'm being thick-headed. It is important to me as well, though I am under a time constraint at the moment.

I'm keeping an open mind, if you have any thoughts - please let me know.

-- flora (***@__._), April 14, 2000.

Flora, not on this remake of De Bunker and BiffY... The bigots hold sway here, (I'm surprised they didn't say "Black Convenience Store Clerk" :-)

It's only a matter of time till they add "liveing in a trailer park" :-)

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 14, 2000.

Same here Jim, no deletions... yet.... It all depends on how hardline you get and how close you cut... and yes, I know who runs this place :-)

Whoever it is that runs this place is doing a good job.

And no Jim, I won't tell you.... OTFR will have to work out their problems with old friends themselves... but one has to wonder why?... why the venom.... :-(

And I have to ask myself, why NG? Why the petty power trip because you know who OTFR is? Venom? Seek thee a mirror.

OTFR, you say you're not into posting your private life for all the world to see--except in a chatroom perhaps?... I just wondered if you starting this forum had anything to do with soothing your husband's heavy DGI attitude. Didn't you say he wanted you to see a shrink?

Like I said once before, you shouldn't turn on your friends that listened and tried to help you when you needed it most, it tends to complicate your life even more :-)

Who gives a shit what the reasoning behind starting this forum was? Folks like it, many of them former doomers. If you have a personal problem with OTFR take it to Email.

Flora, not on this remake of De Bunker and BiffY... The bigots hold sway here, (I'm surprised they didn't say "Black Convenience Store Clerk" :-) It's only a matter of time till they add "liveing in a trailer park" :-)

As far as I know this place is open to all. If the folks from Ed's board are afraid to post here it is hardly the fault of those of us who do post here. Bigots? Compared to some posters from the old TB2K that statement is so dumb as to defy a response. I had reserved forming an opinion about you NG, but the pettiness of your posts to this thread may change that.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 15, 2000.

As far as I know this place is open to all.

Really unk?... if things get a little close to home do you really think I won't be cencored?... If I get too Hardline I won't be deleted on sight?... welcome to the real world :-)

If I posted what I know.... This doesn't involve you, why are you makeing it your biz?

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 15, 2000.

A fair question deserves a fair answer.

Since I do not know who either of you are I can only judge your actions. Yours strike me as petty and vindictive.

I am glad that OTFR started this forum. OTFR's actions so far in regards to moderating this forum strike me as fair and even handed.

The difference between the two sets of actions leads me by default to side with OTFR.

Clear enough?

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), April 15, 2000.

I guess I'll have the chicken enchiladas and a margarita. Hold the salt.

Nah, make it a bourbon, straight up.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), April 18, 2000.