As much as I enjoy this forum I must stand by Flint...as far as I know, Flint's only crime has been to be a vociferious opponent of the doomer genre, of which I was one. But I always admired Flints pointed but fair ( and correct ) opinion. The great thing about this forum is that differences of opinion can be tolerated. You can get by very nicely without me, but if Flint is kept out then I will stay out and look for a little more broadminded forum. Or as W.C. Fields once said " I would'nt join a club that would have me as a member"

-- citizen, March 02, 2000.

Yes, perhaps we can have a complete list of everyone who is banned, and why?

-- Malcolm Taylor, March 02, 2000.

All this makes me wonder why any sensible person would want to survive a catastrophic event, if pathetic memetic doomers survived along with you...

Just look at their model of "gubmint:" they could give any nazi a lesson in fascism.

Vindicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 17, 2000

Answers

Two doomers who defended Flint, and the pansy mocks them with the usual "memetic" nonsense. It would be interesting to lock Andy Ray and CPR in the same room -- I'll bet that neither could stand the other, in real life.

-- WD-40 (wd40@squeak.not), July 17, 2000.

pathetic "neener-neener" meme.

-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), July 17, 2000.

AR,

You should fill out your rhymes. You could start with:

"pathetic memetic-boomer doomers"

If you add one additional rhyming word to each post, soon they'll be HUGE, and without any dicernable loss of meaning.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIN@twocents.cam), July 17, 2000.

Pollies, doesn't it sort of bother you, this Andy Ray fool trivializing the horrors of Naziism?

-- Andy Ray Fool (reflects@on.you), July 17, 2000.

Well Andy you surely are on the right track,

For Zoobie and lube job to lay down their smack.

These two chumps are losers,

And sucked-in dumb users,

Of Eds bad advice to the doom zombie pack.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), July 17, 2000.

AR--

Wasn't this quote taken from EZBoard?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), July 17, 2000.

You need to start providing the URLs for these quotes, Andy Ray.

-- (Historians@appreciate.attribution), July 18, 2000.

Perhaps someone should inform WD-40, Zoobie, and Frank that y2k was a non-event. I have the feeling they are still hiding in their shelters, believing the world (the way we know it) has ended about 6 and a half months ago.

-- Just trying to help (trying@to.help), July 18, 2000.

Just trying to help,

It was explained to them before the non-event. Every single item they posted and held up was de-bunked completely, and still they continued misleading innocent women and children, and destroying families and friendships - sad, really.

One wonders is they will ever "Get It."

VIndicated Regards,
Andy Ray

-- Andy Ray (andyman633@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

AR, you said,

and still they continued misleading innocent women and children, and destroying families and friendships - sad, really.

Can you please present some evidence of where I destroyed a family or friendship? What kind of an idiot are you? Get over it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 18, 2000.

I have, for the most part, remained off of these threads, for a number of reasons .. none of which I care to go into at this point. But I'd like to address what Frank asked of Andy Ray.

I can't speak for Andy Ray or anyone aside from *me*, but I remember as lurker on the original TB seeing a goodly number of posters (no, I cannot cite specific threads, sorry) who, from time to time (almost seemed "regularly" at times), would post that their families refused to have anything to do with them, as well as their friends, neighbors and/or co-workers, because of their "Preparing" for the coming "chaos".

Now, these posts could easily have been "plants" to garner "the sympathy vote"; of that I have no doubt. But taken at face value (because that's all you have on the Internet), one's first instinct is to believe what's posted (doesn't that kind of explain alot of the "hysteria" surrounding the Y2K problem?).

I remember posting on Debunker a number of times that one of my major concerns was for just these types of people; would they completely alienate themselves from all around them? Would those relationships ever be able to be mended? And even if they could, would they ever be the same? What about the people (no matter how few in number) who quit their well-paying jobs, sold their dream-homes and "bugged out to the hills" with their families? Do you think the kids understood and/or accepted any or all of this? Why should they have had to? Yes, I do believe that "something had to be there" in the first place (i.e., a desire to "disconnect") in order that people take such drastic measures. But how many of those people would ever have taken such steps? How many of them are sitting in their "bunkers" regretting their decisions? How many more are sitting there just waiting for something, ANYTHING to happen? What kind of a life is that?

Many people would (rightly) say that each person has to accept responsibility for their own actions; and I'm no exception. I think "personal responsibility" has been shunted as a "useful life tool". But that does not preclude my sympathy for those who buy into a "fear"; especially a fear that was, for the most part, PEDDLED to the masses for specific self-serving goals.

Yes, Frank, that WAS a major concern of mine. I DID worry about these people and similar types from whom you'd never hear a word. I doubt you were one of the posters I remember seeing, but just speaking in general terms, I'd have to say that, yes, there WERE some relationships destroyed over Y2K, and consequently, people hurt because of it. YES, it turns out, NEEDLESSLY.

I'm also thinking of people like Karen Anderson ("Dear Karen") who was so "frightened" by the "Y2K doom possibilities" that she had her teenage daughters' wisdom teeth removed. HER TEENAGE DAUGHTERS?!?!?! What kind of an effect do you think that had on those girls? Do you think "Dear Karen" was the only one?

Anyway, I shall lurk back into the shadows of these threads. You're a sensible guy, Frank, and I felt you deserved a sensible answer. No offense was meant or intended, and I hope you don't take it as such. Just kind of telling it as I saw it. We can all sit here and say "it's over" and "get over it", but how many people can never say that? Isn't even one person just one too many? Yes, I do think about these things too much; and that's my problem. I've been told that I can't save the world, but it's not going to stop me from trying in my own little way.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 18, 2000.

Or as W.C. Fields once said " I would'nt join a club that would have me as a member"

It was Marx (Groucho not Karl).

No one would admit Karl, (Except perhaps the man of steel, I expect then the "club" would have been a rather freezing place in the N. hemisphere).

-- richard (richard.dale@onion.com), July 19, 2000.

Patricia,

I hear what you're saying, but I was referring to the posts from "Just..." and AR which seemed to imply that to some degree I personally was responsible for "they continued misleading innocent women and children, and destroying families and friendships".

Although it's nice to be regarded as so influential in the internet community, to me that seems sort of a stretch ;-)

Frank

P.S. I suppose though it is how far you want to go with personal responsiblity. For example, if you are driving and turn without signaling and for whatever reason this is the straw that broke the camel's back for some psychopath who goes home and kills his family because of it, should you feel guilty as if you were the murderer? I'd agree that to some degree one probably *would* feel guilty anyway, but his acts are not your fault. By the same token, there may be a few people who were writing formal publications, etc. who *if they knew y2k was a non-event ahead of time* but continued to worry people anyway ARE at fault to some degree, but for everyone else, you pays your money, and takes your chances.

P.P.S. Heck of a P.S., huh?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 19, 2000.

off

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 19, 2000.

Yes, that *was* quite a "P.S." [g].

I'm glad you see the point I was trying to make. As I said, I can't speak for anyone else and that's just the way I saw things unfold.

But the examples you used are quite disparate. In the instance of the "no turn signal", it can be assumed that there was no INTENT on the driver's part to "break the camel's back". However, in the instance of the publication, it can be assumed that there is an INTENT by the very fact that it was published. A case can be made that one cannot assume that the intent was to mislead (and that is an important caveat); unless we use your example which stated that the author knew ahead of time what the outcome was going to be. Then the author shoulders the burden of responsibility, especially if that author is using his/her credentials, background, qualifications, etc. as the basis for his/her claim to the knowledge contained in the publication. (As in, "Listen to me!! I KNOW what I'm talking about based on X, Y and Z!!")

Again, though, that's the way I see it. Thanks, Frank.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 19, 2000.

Andy,

I do agree with this post. It just wasn't right to ban Flint and others from the new forum. And as you know, I'm now starting to think that it wasn't right to ban you from the old...

Flint and I were on opposite sides of the Y2K scale. We traded many arguments. We were tied for the #7 and 8 spot, although I'm sure Flint posted a few more words than I did (grin)... But I always considered Flint to be one of the good guys. He made a huge contribution to the old forum, and he took all sorts of abuse because of his point of view. It seems that "ant hill kicking" was his only crime, and he was sentenced to even more abuse, in the form of being banned, because of it. That's just not right.

So while we agree that this stuff is wrong, my only question is, does it really matter? TB2K was one of hundreds (thousands?) of Y2K sites. Yes, it was a doomer site, but it was nothing compared to something like North's, where he was the only one that controlled the content. So does it really matter that EZ2K doesn't want to hear from Flint? He is still free to post on 99.99...% of the other places on the net, including here. Does anything that Flint has to say there really make a difference? Did anything that I, or you, had to say, really make a difference in the big Y2K picture?

If they don't want Flint involved in their world, it's their loss...

<:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), July 19, 2000.