I'm certainly not going to stick up for what the EZboard forum has done with regards to banning people. However, I wonder if that's any worse than the accepted practice at the old Debunkers' where a couple of their regulars would try to flame off any newcomer who might possibly disagree with their particular orthodoxy.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 10, 2000

Answers

No different from what the regulars at TB2000 did to any poster who asked a simple question or made a statement that disagreed with their particular orthodoxy. What's worse, flames or deletions?

I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 10, 2000.

Peter, I thought you were smarter than that.

-- (You're @ Erring .again), May 10, 2000.

It is different Peter. You were at least allowed a voice on the old debunker  it might have been challenged but one was never silenced. If you had something to say you were allowed to say it - and it would not be deleted or censored.

Contrast that with the Marxists over at sleazy who only allow the catechism of paranoia, anti-Semitism and the hatred of gays to proliferate - along with the usual hilarity associated with those who pontificate about poison contrails and UN troops on the interstate...

-- Y2K Pro (y2kpro1@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Delete!

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

OK, the flaming at debunkers was different in some respects from the overt censorship at the EZboard forum. Although the intent was more or less the same, there was no guarantee that the flaming would work in all cases. I suspect that some people were successfully run off, while others were not.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 10, 2000.

WHATT??????????

Orthodoxy?????? Is that what you are calling REALITY now???

And another thing....get a new rationalization. The one you used here to avoid facing the fact you basically have no clue on Y2k, has been used ad nausem.

Question I have,,, is why this non-IT nobody(that be me), was able to call it and Pros like you, Sysman, Heller, Eddie and the rest, were left at the gate? And some of you wonder why management pays you little face? LOL.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 10, 2000.

Msg. for the Senile and Erring-Boy who never "gets it":

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0037ua

-- The Shadow (Shadow@knows.con), May 10, 2000.

To Doc Pauli:

By your Polly orthodoxy, I mean blaming all the hype and hystria on Yourdon-North, rather than greedy consultants and remediation firms.

By your Polly orthodoxy, I mean claiming that Yourdon-North had any real impact outside the realm of household behavior.

You say I'm using a new rationalization to cover the fact that I have no clue about Y2K. What exactly is this "rationalization" that you are talking about? I have already stated that as a Yardeniite, afraid that Y2K would prick our bubble economy, I was wrong and greatly relieved to be wrong.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 10, 2000.

Excuse me but given the context of the debate I was in, referencing Garree and Eddie tended to overshadow what you think I omitted. Hell I blasted crap wherever I found it. Just yesterday I pounded on Saint Leon, is he Garee or Eddie? I also asked if we alls could move beyond the small fry of North/Yourdon and ask the real loudmouth know- nothings how they were so dam wrong, to deaf ears, again.

Go back to Debunkers and read please.

BTW, I am a real big fan of Peter de Jager as you know,,,,NOT. I stood alone basically blasting Capers Jones as I remember to boot. I am also the dude who has called Y2k basically a farce, what is it you are not comprehending?

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 10, 2000.

one other thing...North/Yourdon were messengers of the meme. Their impact is more an indication rather than a cause. They carried the Consultant BS to the public, as did others, upto and including this US Government.

Why was it necessary for all this to reach the public? Lack of guys able to password protect places like year2000.com? Sorry but there is plenty of insider info in all fields that a customer simply does not need to know. It isn't a cover-up, it is providing value by not burdening them with BS they should not, and are in no position to fully understand. Few around, including many of your myopic programmer brotherhood, will never get it, has you are proving nicely.

-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 10, 2000.

To Doc Paulie:

I'm not proving anything right now except that I'm showing a lot more patience with you than you deserve.

Perhaps you will recall, I got into big arguments with people (CPR, Mr. Polly, and Paul Davis over at BIFFY) over whether Yourdon-North was the root of all evil in the country. You did not participate in these arguments.

And now some of you are making total fools of yourselves by arguing that the evidence shows that we could have gotten away with fix-on-failure.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 10, 2000.

To Doc Paulie, again:

We (that's you and me both) have gotten away from the point of my post.

When I first ventured into the Debunkers forum, CPR and Mr. Polly both tried to flame me out of there for no good reason. Mr. Polly told LL "we've gotten rid of him."

This didn't work with me because it just got my back up, but that sort of thing, I daresay, has probably worked on some people.

-- Peter Errington (petere@ricochet.net), May 10, 2000.

Peter:

"but that sort of thing, I daresay, has probably worked."

It worked on a LOT of Y2k fora, Peter. I remember entering a forum called Tick Tock or something like that. One of the posters there just about set me on fire. I persisted and he and I E- mailed for two years. The MSNBC Year 2000 Issues forum got lots of posters from the Yourdon forum that said they were flamed away. I think it was Flint who mentioned that he got lots of E-mail from Yourdon lurkers stating they were afraid to post. Y2k became a very emotional issue. Some folks took it VERY seriously.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), May 10, 2000.

Peter - I think you're overanalyzing it.

People can be either idiots or assholes. In this case, on the issue of y2k, the doomers were idiots and the pollies were assholes.

-- Sigmund Freud (inkblot@mind.net), May 10, 2000.

Why, just yesterday I read a post here from Doc Paulie (who is neither a Dr. or named Paul) saying that, if he had it to do over again, he would moderate and delete on Biffy. (Hi there, shadow=creeper! Still an addict, I see. LOL!).

Peter, don't forget the rabid Debonker's exemplary behavior when they attempted to ruin Steve Heller with his publisher, track down Ron Schwarz and complain to his employer, to name but a few.

Sigmund, one of the best summaries yet written.

-- (BWAHAHA@BWAHA.HA), May 11, 2000.

People can be either idiots or assholes. In this case, on the issue of y2k, the doomers were idiots and the pollies were assholes.

LOL! I think that one of the main reasons pollies came across as assholes was because of being treated as idiots by some doomers who we could plainly see were idiots themselves (or at least idiotic on this subject). You might come across as an asshole too if you thought people so wrong were controlling the discussions.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), May 11, 2000.