postgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Exposing Rightwing Corruption : One Thread
-- Cherri (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 28, 2001
Good idea Cherri. I've always defended the idea of people being able to keep their own little campfire private or controlled. Didn't befriend me to anti-Yourdon camp and won't protect from your detractors either.
Would suggest that your relatively newfound awareness of political corruption embrace a wider view. We're pretty short of good guys on both sides. Keep well.
-- Carlos (email@example.com), May 28, 2001.
One slight difference here, Carlos. The "anti-Yourdon crowd" (of which I was a "member") had a valid complaint -- Yourdon and Company were blocking anyone who disagreed with them. Hell, they banned ME and I NEVER posted at the original TB2K. 'Splain that one, if you can.
Cherri, OTOH, practically GAVE the Poole's Roost-reading public the password here. Her intentions are vastly different; she decided that what she was posting was being considered as "spam".
It wasn't to "lock" anyone out. Except maybe the juvenile delinquents from SLEZBoard who can't seem to address the issues.
You forget -- I stopped posting at Unk's for that very reason. All anyone could comment on was my **perceived weight** (and some of the more juvenile of them followed me to Poole's). None of the brainless wonders could address the issues; that would have required functioning brain cells. (And I can't help but wonder how long it will be until they follow me here.)
Those people need to go back to protective custody somewhere. They obviously can't handle real freedom. They NEED someone to "lead" them in the "right" direction.
Great place, Cherri. Think I'll post a few links to some of my favorite sites.
-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 29, 2001.
"slight difference" Patricia? A great difference I think. Yourdon's original open fourm succumbed to what those around that little campfire found so obtrusive that they had in order to maintain their secular community resorted to controls. Argue your right to someone elses campfire all you want but it won't wash.
Consider. Had you troopies stayed away and Yourdon's legion developed tenfold. What then? The answer is exactly nothing. Nothing except the unwanted intrusion on somebody elses campfire. Try twentyfold. Same answer.
There were two crusades here. One minded its own business and the other didn't. The end result was a ton of rhetoric from each and nothing worthwhile from either.
-- Carlos (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 30, 2001.
"You troopies"??? How many times did I tell you that the "trolls" at the original TB2K were NOT any of the Debunker regulars (and despite popular "doomer" belief, LadyLunatic was NOT a "debunker", let alone a "regular")? What, did you think I was lying? None of the "regulars" could be bothered with the childish bullshit or the paranoia rampant amongst "the faithful". Those people were NUTS (and they all knew what they knew, the facts be damned). And some of them still are, as EZB has shown.
You say that "one of them minded their own business".....oh please. Every damn chance they got they'd post something about the "evil debunkers", and your friend Old Git led the way in that department. And god help you if you got on that one's "bad side". Nothing more than a power-hungry wacko who probably was a nice person at some point, but had long since lost that.
I realize in many ways you were "one of them" and I further realize you like and/or respect a number of them to whom I wouldn't give the time of day. OG (sorry, but that one is just reprehensible with the outings and all) posted things about me and I never once posted over at the original! And to ban Jonathan Latimer, probably the most polite person in the cyber-world. Un-freaking-believable. Hell, look what Olson did every time HE posted at TB2KUS -- nothing but personal attacks on any who disagreed with the EZB party line -- AND IT WASN'T EZB!!
But therein lies the difference: They WERE allowed everywhere else. NONE of them was banned. Why was it that they were allowed at every other site, regardless of the "slant" of the site, yet they kept their little enclave "safe" from the influence of Damn Evil People (like me)? Was/is their position so "fragile" that they couldn't deal with a cogent argument? Seems to me that was the situation exactly. Look what they did to their OWN who disagreed with The Party Line: YOU'RE BANNED. How completely juvenile; how completely paranoid; how completely "nazi-esque".
I never WANTED anyone else's "campfire". Hell, I never would have posted at the Safe and Locked TB2K/EZB anyway. But I was never given the chance.
Do you honestly think that I would have posted there with personal insults and attacks? Do you honestly think that's not EXACTLY what I would have received no matter what I posted?
The irony of the whole thing is that *I* was probably the one being "protected". LOL.
Don't defend them, Carlos. You're much better than that. They're nothing more than a group of paranoid close- and narrow-minded wackos, the Cascadians and Olson leading the way (and we're not even talking about the "power-hungry" ones amongst them -- your friend being most prominent in that department).
-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), May 30, 2001.
Yeowch! What I defend Patricia is the right to privacy and nothing more. Property rights if you will. The right to keep and hold is just as important as the right to say and do but they have to be mutually exclusive rights. Try singing the star spangled banner at mass. Freedom of speach you know. Dunno if I've made my point very well but that you weren't a disruptive interloper at TB doesn't surprise me at all. Wouldn't have thought so. Still, you seem to be defending those unnamed (snicker, snicker) troll types who did.
-- Carlos (email@example.com), May 31, 2001.
Not at all, Carlos, and I vocally (well, on the board) decried those who did disrupt (except one time Super Polly said something....I think it was him and I can't remember what he said, but I remember it was damn funny).
The "spamming" was reprehensible, and I said that, too. But (again, IIRC) Super Polly wasn't banned for spamming, he was banned for "attitude". Which was just a howl when Andy and Company weren't banned, and their "attitudes" were MUCH WORSE.
I have no problem with "the right to privacy" and if someone wants to keep their board private, that is their right. But I really think the situation we're discussing was at least slightly different. Look what's happened to Unk's since they've been "set free".
Tell me, did anyone from Unk's (who was allowed to post at EZB) ever post derogatory comments at EZB about them? A couple of people cross-posted a couple of threads to Unk's (which, again, were damn funny on the surface, but pretty sad when you realized the underlying), but that was about it.
And I rarely -- if ever -- joined THAT bandwagon.
Seems to me the bulk of "those people" believe in "live and let live", but only as it applies to others.
History is just that; and we have bigger fish to fry, don't we?
Besides, there's yet another anonymous moron at Poole's. What a surprise. I think I'm going to have to change my name or something, and that just bothers me more than you'll ever know.
-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 01, 2001.
Anyway, congrats Cherri on your new forum.
-- Carlos (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 02, 2001.
I just thought I'd check in, Cherri. I haven't yet seen a thread on which I had a strong opinion, but if/when it happens, I'll post. In the meantime, I appreciate the lurk capability.
-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 03, 2001.