I tend not to trust a poster who is unheard of one day and the next day has 6+ post within a few hours. Whats up with that? Does anyone know who he/she really is?

Mild Mannered Reporter..... who are you and why are we suddenly blessed with your appearance?

-- bulldog (sniffin@around.com), June 28, 1999

Answers

Sort of reminds me of "Norm".

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), June 28, 1999.

Yes Tim, the post-and-run style is a giveaway that this is the NORM.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Super Polly/Troll--a debunker--and a Norm/Y2K Pro/Vinnie wannabe--and associate--latest attack strategy

-- giveitup (nonreporter@trolls.anon), June 28, 1999.

Carpet-posting? The Blitzpolly?

-- (lol@home.com), June 28, 1999.

Hey Everyone,

Shouldn't this sort of wasting of our new threads be a DELETE item. If the moderators permit this sort of thing, we will be flooded with Polly crud. How many others here would like to see this sort of abusive use of the forum removed? We could end up with a 100 a day of this sort of polly-post-and-run that we see happening.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

Hey Everyone,
Shouldn't this sort of wasting of our new threads be a DELETE item. If the moderators permit this sort of thing, we will be flooded with Polly crud. How many others here would like to see this sort of abusive use of the forum removed? We could end up with a 100 a day of this sort of polly-post-and-run that we see happening.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

Ummmm....Gordon? Are you suggeating that they are off-topic? I don't see how...they are as y2k related as you can get. Or are you saying that *any* good y2k news should be deleted? If you are, just say so, so we'll know what exactly you are suggesting.

-- Bob (bob@bob.bob), June 28, 1999.

Right On Gordon!

No dissenting opinions should be allowed! Polly whiners, spouting facts... no more I say!

-- (nazibastard@heart.aintcha), June 28, 1999.

Sir Gordon - let them post. It is however, discouraging to find how easy it to show the potential failures and missing solutions still hiding between the words in every "for official release" news article.

The mainstream press, and the government agencies in general - if their "keep the public happy" words ar eany clue - really have no idea how fragile their assumptions are.

The real Y2K messages - "we hope (most of it) really won't break" - because "we can't really fix (enough of it) in time to keep it working like (all of it) does now."

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), June 28, 1999.

So now we come face to face with the real problem associated with censorship and how easy and justifiable it becomes once that line is crossed.

Most who responded agreed that al-d's posts should be deleted. A day later, censorship is beckoned just because a new poster out up six quick messages. It may well be that Mild Mannered Reporter is a troll whose only mission is disruption and obfuscation.

Censorship is not unlike vigilantism. Initial responses are, indeed, against society's bad guys. Human nature being what it is, though, the vigilantes can be turned against those whose simple opinions are counter to the head vigilante's ... or perhaps the suitor of the head vigilante's daughter.

Many of us have ridden out Norm and JBD and Vinnie and al-d. We can ride this one out, too. If these type postings bother you, just ignore them. And don't respond to them.

Some of us remember, as well, an occasion or two where someone originally thought to be a troll turned out to be legitimate.

I seldom agree with the sentiments of Flint and Decker and Y2K Pro, but I believe they have the right to post. I just have the right to disagree and to not read them if I so choose.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 28, 1999.

God point Vic. The difference with the late al-d and MM Reporter is that you can just skip over MMR's threads if you want to, but with the ubiquitous al-d you really couldn't just ignore him and it was obvious we needed him to be gone. I say let the Pollys post here...BUT, if they exceed a certain number of threads per day (6, 8?) then it's clear they are just trying to monopolize the forum and then maybe we can appeal to the moderators again.

-- (html@guy.com), June 28, 1999.

With the latest explosion of WE ARE SUNK news from our nation's capital, I guess the Y2K Disinformation Office (otherwise known as BFI) has unleashed a new NORM machine. (The old one collapsed due to that e-mail attachment computer virus problem, as I recall.) NORM = Non-thinking Output Response Machine.

We do not need another idiotic machine simply posting "good news" type articles, without commenting, and often simply repeating what has already been posted in another thread by a living, thinking, breathing human.

In short, I would be all for DELETE-ON-SIGHT of anything from the Mild Mannered Reporter troll machine. And, like the NORM machine that preceded it, I hope that it is not Y2K compliant.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

In short, everyone has a right to post here... in fact if we see a deluge of polly postings that is a sign in itself...(shill!! ;o) andy...)

But we should put a cap on how many threads ANY ONE person can start in a day, to keep it fair for everyone... so what is it going to be ? 5 threads? I think that is more that fair...

(But then again someone can just post 5 under one name and then 5 under another and 5 under another... gets kind of tricky)

-- (html@guy.com), June 28, 1999.

Completely ignoring the troll post will have exactly the same effect, KOS. You seem quite grumpy today. Won't anyone wrestle with you?

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 28, 1999.

King of Spain,

I agree with you. And just to clarify my position. I am NOT against the Polly posting per se. I have never before suggested such a thing. What I am getting at here is *intentional* abuse of this forum site by post-and-run Pollies. If Mild Mannered Reporter wants to compile a laundry list of "good news" items under one thread, I have no problem with that. But to shotgun us with this stuff on multiple threads is a tactic designed to push other postings off into archive land, IMHO.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

Vic,

My thoughts echo yours.

I too, have found this "ald" character's posts of no value, but once I reached that conclusion, I simply passed by them.

To be honest, the impression I get is that this is more about enforcing the group will on the individual than it is about censorship. Or, to put it another way, it's more about utilizing resources to paint over graffiti than using them to deal with the issues.

I believe that "ald", whoever he might be, has wasted his own time by posting here. Why do you let him waste yours as well?

His postings appear to be pure "jackasselry" as Dieter would say. Just walk on by.

As for how recently or how frequently someone posts being any sort of criteria to even consider them a candidate for censorship is so obviously and outrageously unfair as to defy response! Get a grip!

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 28, 1999.

Hardliner, you might think differently if someone posted twenty useless threads in one day with the sole purpose of clearing out the thread list. Just a thought...

-- (html@guy.com), June 28, 1999.

On the contrary, Vic, I spent the weekend watching and re-watching the fabulous new video "Catfights in Cream 4". That is what you would call a real uplifter!

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

Even though there is nothing new (for many of us) in the articles that MMR has posted, they allow us to present to newbies our most current thoughts on these issues. For that reason, it would be against the intent of this forum to delete these postings. Check out, for instance, the growing discussion on today's FDIC thread. If these are the types of articles currently hitting the mainstream print media, then we should continue to dissect them on this forum.

-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Hi Gordon,

Can I assume you're message is: "People, if we really do end up having a few months before the ship sinks, can we spend our time helping each other, instead of bickering about what is already etched in stone?"

Adding my own commentary, "Can we stop pretending that we can still sit in first class, and not worry about what White Star (the everything is taken care of for you, except for your job, society) is doing with the ship?" "Why this is the Titanic, it could never..."

-- BiGG (supersite@acronet.net), June 28, 1999.

Good for you, KOS. Thanks for the laugh.

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 28, 1999.

This is MMR. Pretty mild, too, comparatively.

-- Outings 3 (i'm@number.I_guess), June 28, 1999.

(html@guy.com),

We are not in disagreement at all. If, as you postulate, the purpose is to manipulate the software, that's one thing. It should be pretty apparent if that's the case.

My point is that frequency and timing of posts are not valid criteria for such judgement. Content obviously is.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 28, 1999.

Gosh... why would anyone consider "censoring" or deleting the Y2K news of any flavor? It's decidedly "on topic."

Pretty easy to "de-bunk" too. (Insert Decker chortle here).

Intentional trash posts are a different order of magnitude, IMHO. As are the little boyz 'n girlz potty posts, or the HTML games.

I think what annoys us, about Mild Mannered, is he/she/it is using the same Norm tactic... again.

BTW, "it" is also a very well-known "super polly." That's also what irks some of us.

Ces't la vie. Est la guerre.

It's all Y2K... still.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

Yeah your right, both hardliner and Diane,

I'm not saying that we should delete any good news, or bad news. But in fairness to the many people who post here I think it would be considerate to limit the number of posts. MMR is already up to 9 in the last 24 hours. It's like, I'm watching my house burn down and MMR comes up to me, smacks me in the head with a tack hammer and says "see how much worse it could be?". It's very distracting from the subject at hand. In my opinion you have to wonder why he chose today to do so much distracting. Maybe there is a reason maybe there isn't but to me it's prudent to be skeptical.

I'd be just as annoyed if there was some monumentally good news out of Washington and then some doomer posted 9 threads about non related failures in the same day to distract from the topic. Maybe I'm paranoid, but like my brother always said, "I wouldn't be paranoid if there wasn't a conspiracy against me".

-- (html@guy.com), June 28, 1999.

Diane, I thought they meant THIS thread.

-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), June 28, 1999.

aT FirST EVerYOnE HAteD DIEteR, aND DIeteR LOveD YOu aLL!!!!!

noW EVerYONe loVEs dIETER, anD DIEteR HAteS YOu!!!!!!

IDioTS!!!!!

-- Dieter (questions@toask.com), June 28, 1999.

J (jart5@bellsouth.net),

Go read the guidelines for posting. The Moderators and Sysops tried to be pretty specific and DO try to very lenient... even about the OT posts. That's how *most* posters want it on this Forum.

That's not to say, some daze ya just want to punch a troll!

Hummm... time for a latte. OM.

;-D

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

Uh... bad no hair day Dieter?

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

Who, indeed?

-- Outings 4 (another@number.brick_in_the_wall), June 28, 1999.

All right, all right,

Let me put it this way, the way that I put it to Al-D when he first started doing the same thing MM Reporter is doing. Pick a real catchy heading for the thread, something like "More Great News For Today" and then post ALL the items under that heading. This will accomplish two things. First, it will be a *gold mine of good news* for those that are starving for it. Second, it won't fill up a whole bunch of other threads with basically just "headline" information. Now, I wouldn't object to that at all. But, when it starts to look (and smell) like just some malicious mischief going on, I do object.

-- Gordon (gpconnolly@aol.com), June 28, 1999.

Oh, how funny! Has anyone bothered to count the Andy or a@a.a posts on todays list? Why aren't you complaining about the crossposting of 'death becomes him' Milne? Or why don't you just delete ALL us polly's and end the debate. This place has gone to the dogs since Yourdon left - constant wrangleing over who should be censored and who should not.

The moderators even have their own private forum where they discuss that kind of crap - click on the LUSENET link at the top of the page and it shows up under private forums at the bottom of the page. Pretty active too - has gotten more than seven posts in any given seven day period since someone posted the news that it existed on the BFI forum.

A forum that needs a forum to moderate the forum. Give me a break!

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

Actually, Paul, it's more like the forum needs a forum to privately figure out who the disruptive trolls are. You know, those that lust for the demise of the forum? Those guys?

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

Oh stop twitching, Paul. How like you to respond with a rant about the original post after many among us posited that we didn't think much of the idea of censoring such. Wait a minute! Does this mean we're like-minded? Yikes!

-- Vic (Rdrunner@internetwork.net), June 28, 1999.

Poor Paul,

Yes there IS a Moderator's forum. So? It's easier than dealing with tons of e-mail among a large group trying to reach concensus.

"This place has gone to the dogs since Yourdon left - constant wrangleing over who should be censored and who should not." -- Paul Davis

The yapping "dogs" come and go, Paul.

Most the CENSORSHIP wrangeling here... has come from the De Bunker trolls and Pollys... Paul... because "they" would like this Forum to shut down. You know... De Bunker... that second place you post a lot.

And a "high degree" of trolling activity here... is "launched" from there... as well.

Paul, if there was "censorship"... trust me... you wouldn't be seen here!

Have a nice day. (And DO get over that meme you and Decker, et. al., keep trotting out every week since Ed "left" the Forum).

Shift Happens.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 28, 1999.

BWAAAhhhahaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Paul, you sure got Diane "just shag me, baby" Squire's panties in a bunch with that comment!

At least she is finally honest! "no good news will be allowed here, damnit!" "If were up to me, you wouldn't even be here!"

Whatsa matter, poor babies...Mild Mannered got you down? Can't handle the fact that the y2k good news is everywhere, while the FREAKS of y2k doom hide in the shadows?!?

(I have a pretty good idea why you think I'm MMR; it has to do with being TRACKED on this forum if you disagree with the cult/church)

-- Super Polly (Fu_Q_y2kfreaks@hotmail.com), June 28, 1999.

Well, Howdy!, Super Polly!

Tell us a little about how your day's going so far.....

And how you would LIKE IT TO GO FROM HERE.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), June 28, 1999.

Well, Diane...

Paul, if there was "censorship"... trust me... you wouldn't be seen here!

Litte by little, the true colors begin to show...

-- Hoffmeister (hoff_meister@my-deja.com), June 28, 1999.

Paul,

Since you asked, I did. Andy posted two new threads today (6-28), "a" none at all, and the "Mild Mannered Reporter posted seven new threads.

As for the forum "going to the dogs since Ed left", I am compelled to point out that he didn't leave, he just turned the moderation task over to others, and we have always had a lot of "dogs" here. There's BigDog, Bulldog, Old Dog, seems like there was a "little dog on the front porch", and then there's Richard, Carlos and Hardliner, plus all the others that I can't recall off the top of my head who are Devildogs, and last but certainly not least, Uncle Deedah, who as the offspring of a Devildog surely must be some kind of dog! (probably a Salty Old Dog!)

I may be missing something, but I can only recall less than half a dozen threads about censorship since the "changing of the guard" (and I try to follow that subject) which seems a very insignificant number compared to the total number of threads since then.

As for what kind of crap the moderators might discuss in their own forum, your guess is as good as mine, but it is apparent that there has not been much "moderating" done since the change.

Speaking only for myself, I don't want to get rid of all the pollys, or even some of them. I don't think that the moderators do either. I do think that everyone would like for them all to conduct themselves with the civility and honesty that you do.

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 28, 1999.

Hardliner:

Civility is a Good Thing. Sticking to the subject rather than indulging in personal attacks is a Good Thing also. But extremists at both ends are guilty -- why single out only one extreme? I've noticed that doomer posts of no redeeming quality outnumber polly posts of no redeeming quality, about in the proportion that doomers outnumber pollys on this forum. It's nobody's private estate.

As for Diane "I'm a middle-of-the-roader but we're doomed and all the trolls are pollys" Squire, I can only laugh.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), June 28, 1999.

Flint,

I agree about not singling out one extreme or the other. Does it appear to you that I've done so?

-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), June 28, 1999.

Well, Hardliner, I do try to be polite. Sometimes it is a bit of a strain. And Andy and a didn't post much yesterday, I will admit, though I have counted as many as 12 or 13 from each on this 'short form' we are using now. That is a lot of posting, and why is it so much more acceptable for heavy posters to be total doomers? That was the thrust of my post.

I think you have missed a good bit of the requests for censorship - or maybe you have just ignored them. Myself, I have been fighting censors in various forms for years - and made myself very unpopular in certain circles as a result. The entire idea behind censorship, that an individual or group of individuals have the right or duty to prevent certain information THEY disapprove of from being seen or accessed by another group of individuals, is totally repugnant to me. So I may just be a bit more sensitive to this sort of thing than most.

Anyhow - I suspect MMR is just someone here (not me, BTW) who has been around for a while and just decided to see what kind of reception a bunch of MOTR threads all in one day would get. Guess he (or she) found out.

And Diane, as far as I know, this situation of a forum for moderators of another forum is unique in the history of the Internet. If not, I certainly haven't heard of it if it has happened. I have to wonder how a private forum with a name like "Polly planning for posts to Yourdon's forum" would be received. (Now that I said that, someone will probably do it.)

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

Paul -

Why not drop Gene Spafford a note and ask him about that "forum for moderators"? The "Backbone Cabal" had their work cut out for them in the early days of USENET and they certainly needed some method for communicating and coordinating their actions.

Ah, rec.bizarre. Now THAT was a newsgroup to be reckoned with...

-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), June 29, 1999.

Well, Paul... Y2K is rather "unique" to the planet too. We're all pioneering.

If you have a question... any question... just ASK one of the moderators who have choosen to be public.

Heck... just "ask" any of the posters for that matter. It's all a "team" effort Paul. Companies and corporations do it all the time. Consider that sometimes a "problem" comes up that needs solving... so the Moderators have a board meeting. What's so "unusual" about that?

The "best" discussion, so far, has been the c4i saga.

The worst pain in the ASCII is the avowed De Bunker attacks, not so much of the pollys (we live with them... you too) but the disruptive hecklers, potty posters and name/handle steelers... of which "Super Polly" is a *star* member. Buddy has also been one of the worst offenders. He has now graciously agreed to stop. For that, we thank him.

The lowest we've seen from them is stooping to the level of HTML mess ups on threads... including a rash of them on the al-d posts.

Yes... those are "issues" we need to discuss sometimes.

BTW, have YOU been "censored?" NO. So quit yelling. This forum is here for the Y2K duration. Get over it.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.

BTW Diane: Whatever happened to:

**************The "best" discussion, so far, has been the c4i saga.

****************

-- justme (finally@home.com), June 29, 1999.

justme,

Were just waiting to see when... or IF... the other show will drop. Who knows?

Go re-read the four key threads. (Not a bad idea in light of the recent Washington Post article).

Thread #1...

Why Paul Milne is a Polly

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000w5S

Thread #2...

Weak Link

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wIA

Thread #3...

WHY I THINK c4i IS A DOOMER TROLL

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wKw

Thread #4...

c4i, how might you wish us best respond to your disclosures?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000wOI

Now... the real c4i posted on the first thread and came in on a verified dot mil ISP. Then on the second thread a fake c4i starts posting... NOT coming from a dot mil ISP. On the the forth thread the real c4i posts once to FM coming back in on that verified dot mil ISP.

Several of us received e-mail form said c4i. The publisher they requested we take the story to, responded that they ONLY follow their own verifiable leads and sources. So... there it sits.

Read it... and ALL the responses... and figure it out yourself.

To paraphrase one Moderator... they sure came down the fire poles fast on this one!

For me... Im STILL curious. Especially with the rash of new posters. And trolls.

Go figure.

Diane

-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), June 29, 1999.