Just a thought.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Open Discussion Board : One Thread

I don't know about the rest of y'all, and so far it seems that the only posters who've come here so far met during the Y2k discussions, but I'm sick to death of all that shit and I'd like a truly clean start.

I enjoy the concept of an open discussion board, and I'm glad that someone chose to create one and provide us the link. It sure makes life easier when someone else does all the work. [Remind me of that before I volunteer to cook another Thanksgiving dinner.]

This forum has absolutely no ties to Unk. I don't want to see it as a continuation of the forum that Unk had. I want to see new people attracted to [hopefully] interesting conversations even though they don't know us. Do you think we can start over, meet new people, have discussions on topics that don't relate to our past experiences with the old people? I'd sure like to try that on for size. How about you?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001


"This forum has absolutely no ties to Unk"


now we know that it definately has ties to unk. Kids, watch what they do not what they say.

anyway yes, it will be nice to have a new place even if "cough sputter cough Unc does not own it" "wink wink nudge nudge"

-- sinner (sin@sin.com), November 27, 2001.

now we know that it definately has ties to unk.

This is conjecture. Do you want a clean start or NOT?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Sure, I would love one, however I have learned over the ages that when someone repeats things over and over such as "This place has no ties to Unc" what they are doing is a mild form of brain washing.

The harder you pound away with "this place is not his" the more most will believe, that in fact, it IS his.

It is just like what they did with cigarettes over the 90's. They told people that you could "Catch" cancer like a cold if you even smelled tobacco and the sheep bought it. Now they cower in fear when you light up.

Uncs was filled with people who were not the "Sheep" type. You will have to let time tell us this is not Uncs place. Jamming it in our faces only serves to make us think it is his.

-- (sin@sin.com), November 27, 2001.

"Jamming it in our faces only serves to make us think it is his."

That is very interesting reasoning. It amounts to saying that whatever you are told, you suspect the opposite is true. You are very wise. I repeat, you are very wise. And smart, too, with excellent judgement. I mean it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), November 27, 2001.

when someone repeats things over and over

Unless I stuttered, I think I only said that ONCE. *I* believe it. If you don't, you have every right to your opinion. I'd just like to start in a new place without all the old baggage following along. [Maybe that's why I'm so willing to believe that this forum wasn't started by anyone associated with Y2k.]

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Anita, I tried to steer clear of all the obscure, recriminatory threads at Unk's - whose origins I have no clear idea of and whose outcome I had absolutely no interest in. My impression was that very few of the regulars at Unk's took any part in the warfare or the vandalism.

It didn't seem to matter to the combatants. Threads ballooned to 100 replies in a matter of hours and I didn't recognize any of the handles. The content of the threads suggested that only a handful of people were involved on both 'sides' - although what or who the participants thought they were siding with is a deep mystery to me. It all seemed very tribal and cultic - filled with references only the initiates could fathom and 'purposes' that only a lunatic could cherish.

If you know what the tantrums were 'about' then please don't enlighten me. I don't want to clutter my mind with such infodust. Why it would matter whether "anyone associated with Y2k" expresses an opinion about CAFE standards, sex-change operations, or Afghan women's rights, is too recondite for me.

My only point is that, you can't reason with people who have temporarily lost their minds. As far as I can see, anyone who took an active part in the war at Unk's was totally impenetrable to reason. They were caught up in some spell or trance and the only hope is that they'll wake up someday. All we can do is behave normally and hope the example takes hold.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), November 27, 2001.

Anita, that would be great. I would like to see those which have the cool topics (not into politcs too much) but I love O'Reilly. This could be considered "the No Spin Zone'? Anyways it is good to see you again. And yes, I belive it can be a place where civil good conversation takes place. WE CAN START OVER, by leaving the past behind and only focusing on the good things.

-- Consumer aka Carrie (sumer@wont.give), November 27, 2001.

Very well said, Little Nipper. I applaud you.

-- Kelly (toyotaw@hotmail.com), November 27, 2001.

Hey, anita, what's all the shit about unk? I seem to remember him from tb 2000. there were lots of folks who went ballistic then, and i can't seem to remember whether unk was one or not.

Who cares if unk has anything to do with this forum? Anyway?


-- joj (joj@home.org), November 30, 2001.

Unk was not one of the ballistic people. I remember him coming in on my side during an argument I was having with crazy Andy.

-- Peter Errington (petere7@starpower.net), November 30, 2001.

Who cares if unk has anything to do with this forum? Anyway?

Well, *I* certainly don't care, but you might want to read a few other threads to discern that SOME folks apparently DO care. Don't ask ME why. I've never understood all the hullabaloo from the start.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), November 30, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ